§rom  t 0e  feifirarg  of 

(profe66or  ^amuef  (JtXiffer 

in  Qttemorg  of 

3ub^e  ^amuef  (tttiffer  Qgrecftinribge 

^preeenfeo  fig 

^amuef  (Jttiffer  (grecftinrib^e  £onc$ 

fo  f0e  £t6rors  of 

Qprtnceton  ©Seofogicaf  ^eminarj 


o^ 


■L 


BX  9175  .S56  1843  c.l 
Smyth,  Thomas,  1808-1873. 
resbytery  and  not  prelacy 


~-\ 


LIBRARY  OF  PRINCETON 

I 

JAN  2  7  2005 

IHEOLOGK            ,ARy 

^^Tfe   loft"*, 

fat*  fo    /*43* 


PRESBYTERY 


NOT  PRELACY 


SCRIPTURAL  AND  PRIMITIVE  POLITY, 

PROVED  FROM  THE  TESTIMONIES  OF 

SCRIPTURE  ;   THE  FATHERS  ;  THE  SCHOOLMEN ;   THE  REFORMERS  ; 
AND   THE  ENGLISH  AND   ORIENTAL   CHURCHES. 

ALSO, 

THE  ANTIQUITY  OP  PRESBYTERY; 

INCLUDING  AN   ACCOUNT   OF 

THE    ANCIENT    CULDEES,   AND    OF    ST.   PATRICK. 


BY  THOMAS  SMYTH, 

AUTHOR   OF    LECTURES    ON   THE    APOSTOLICAL    SUCCESSION,    ECCLESIASTICAL 
REPUBLICANISM,    ECCLESIASTICAL    CATECHISM,    ETC. 


Show  them  the  form  of  the  house  and  the  fashion  thereof,  and  the  goings  out  thereof,  and  the 
comings  in  thereof,  and  all  the  forms  thereof,  and  all  the  ordinances  thereof,  and  all  the  laws 
thereof:  and  write  it  in  their  sight,  that  they  may  keep  the  whole  form  thereof,  and  all  the 
ordinances  thereof,  and  do  them.    Ezekiel,  13  :  11. 


PUBLISHED: 

BOSTON,    CROCKER    AND     BREWSTER;     NEW    YORK,     ROBERT    CARTER,  JONATHAN    LEAVTTT, 

AND  WILEY  AND  PUTNAM  ;    PHILADELPHIA,  J.  WHETHAM  AND  SON,  WILLIAM  S.  MARTIEN, 

AND     PERKINS     AND     PURVES  J      CINCINNATI,      WEED     AND     WILSON  J      PITTSBURGH, 

THOMAS    CARTER;    CHARLESTON,    S.    HART,   SEN.,   AND   McCARTER   AND  ALLENJ 

LONDON,     WILEY     AND     PUTNAM. 

1843. 


Entered  according  to  Act  of  Congress,  in  the  year  One  Thousand  Eight  Hundred  and  Forty-Three,  by 

CROCKER    &    BREWSTER, 

In  the  Clerk's  Office  of  the  District  Court  of  the  District  of  Massachusetts. 


8.  N.  DICKINSON.  PRINTER, 
No.  ta  ■Washington  8troet 


THIS  VOLUME 


IS    AFFECTIONATELY    DEDICATED 


PRESBYTERIAN,  CONGREGATIONAL,  REFORMED  DUTCH, 

GERMAN  LUTHERAN,  METHODIST,  AND  BAPTIST 

DENOMINATIONS, 


COMMON  PRINCIPLES  OF  ECCLESIASTICAL  ORDER, 


IN    CONTRAST   WITH   THOSE    OF 


PRELACY  AND  POPERY, 


IT   13    MAINLY    DESIGNED 


TO   ADVOCATE. 


PREFACE. 


As  a  sufficient  demand  has  been  made  upon  the  patience 
of  the  reader,  in  the  body  of  this  work,  it  will  not  be 
increased  by  any  lengthened  preface.  All  that  will  be  done, 
therefore,  will  be  to  offer  a  few  words  of  explanation. 

As  to  the  necessity  for  the  work,  nothing  need  be  said.  This 
is  now  universally  admitted.  A  renewed  and  thorough  dis- 
cussion of  the  great  principles  involved  in  the  exclusive 
assumptions  of  prelacy,  is  forced  upon  us  by  the  open  and 
repeated  assaults  made  by  this  bold  enemy,  upon  the  rights 
and  privileges  of  all  other  christian  denominations.  The 
conviction  is  therefore  general,  that  this  controversy  must 
become  the  leading  topic  of  the  age.  Manuals  are  needed, 
ecclesiastical  catechisms  are  needed,  tracts,  sermons,  and  dis- 
courses are  needed,  and  treatises,  like  the  present,  are  also 
needed.  The  one  does  not  supersede  the  other,  nor  render  it 
the  less  necessary.  Let  every  man,  in  his  place,  and  accord- 
ing to  his  opportunity,  come  up  to  the  help  of  the  cause  of 
truth,  charity,  purity,  and  liberty,  against  a  power  which  is 
once  more  forging  for  us  the  chains  of  spiritual  despotism 
and  superstition. 

The  aim  of  this  work  is  catholic,  and  not  sectarian.  The 
author  appears  as  the  advocate,  not  of  a  party,  but  of  all 
non-episcopal  denominations.  He  includes  under  the  term 
presbytery,  those  generic  principles  which  are  common  to 
Congregationalists,  Presbyterians,  Reformed  Dutch,  Lutherans, 
Baptists,  and  Methodists.     In  some  points  he  will  be  found 


VI  PltEFACE. 

differing  with  members  of  each  of  these  bodies,  but  most 
generally  he  hopes  to  be  found  agreeing  with  the  liberal- 
minded  of  them  all.  He  would  re-claim  for  all  these  parties 
the  application,  in  a  wide  sense,  of  the  term  presbytery.  He 
would  thus  hope  to  draw  closer  the  bonds  of  christian  truth, 
harmony,  and  affection,  by  which  we  are  leagued  together. 
This  work  he  offers  to  them  all,  as  a  peace-offering  —  an 
Irenicum  —  and  a  challenge  to  greater  union  and  coopera- 
tion against  our  common  foes.  Our  differences  are  few, 
compared  to  our  points  of  agreement.  They  are  as  nothing, 
when  once  contrasted  with  those  walls  of  separation,  by  which 
prelatists  and  Romanists  would  exclude  us  from  any  inheri- 
tance in  Israel.  The  Philistines  are  upon  us.  They  have 
vowed  the  destruction  of  our  citadels.  They  build  their 
hopes  upon  our  disunion.  Divided  we  fall,  but  united  we  are 
sure  of  victory.  Shall  we  not,  then,  rally  around  the  standard 
of  our  common  principles,  for  the  defence  of  our  common 
rights,  and  pour  our  united  forces  upon  our  common  enemies  ? 
If  this  work  shall  in  any  measure  foster  this  spirit,  and  pro- 
mote these  ends,  the  labors  of  its  author  will  be  rewarded. 
It  was,  of  course,  necessary  for  him  to  speak  as  a  presbyte- 
rian,  in  the  strict  meaning  of  that  word,  and  in  many  cases 
to  draw  his  illustrations  from  this  denominational  system,  to 
which  he  is  conscientiously  attached,  and  to  explain  and 
defend  it  against  misrepresentation.  But,  in  the  main  argu- 
ments of  the  work,  there  will  be  nothing,  he  hopes,  to 
offend  any. 

The  design  of  this  work  was  to  condense  the  substance  of 
the  innumerable  treatises  which  have  been  written  on  the 
subject,  and  to  arrange  their  various  topics  in  a  more  complete 
and  comprehensive  order,  so  as  to  present  them  in  as  perfect, 
clear,  and  satisfactory  a  manner,  as  the  limits  of  a  single  volume 
will  permit.  How  far  the  author  has  succeeded,  he  leaves  the 
reader  to  determine.  He  hopes  that  in  the  arrangement,  in 
many  of  the  arguments,  in  many  of  the  topics  introduced,  and 
in  the  whole  spirit  and  bearing  of  the  work,  there  will  be  found 
sufficient  originality  to  interest  those  who  are  most  familiar  with 


PREFACE.  VII 

the  subject.  No  expense  has  been  spared  in  collecting  in  Lon- 
don, and  on  the  Continent,  all  that  is  valuable,  and  that  was 
procurable,  on  this  great  controversy.  Of  the  toil  undergone 
for  years  past, in  perusing,  collating,  and  digesting  these  works, 
it  is  unnecessary  to  speak.  The  author  does  not  profess,  in 
every  case,  to  have  examined  the  works  of  the  fathers  and 
schoolmen,  for  himself.  Many  of  them  he  has.  But  where  he 
has  not  done  so,  he  has  been  careful  not  to  quote  from  them, 
without  having  abundant  reason  for  believing  that  he  might 
fully  rely  on  the  source  of  his  information.  This  will  be  found 
indicated  in  connection  with  the  quotations  made.  Since, 
however,  he  relies  altogether,  as  a  positive  argument,  upon 
the  authority  of  the  Bible,  he  has  devoted  to  the  scriptural 
argument  the  largest  portion  of  the  volume. 

Every  effort  has  been  made  to  compress  what  was  writ- 
ten within  the  briefest  compass.  About  one  half  of  what 
was  prepared  has,  therefore,  been  omitted.  It  was  found 
necessary,  also,  to  leave  out  the  chapters  on  the  Republi- 
canism, Liberality,  Catholicity,  the  Security  and  Efficiency 
of  Presbytery.  Some  of  these  topics  will  be  found  discussed 
in  another  and  smaller  volume,  entitled  '  Ecclesiastical 
Republicanism,'  to  which  the  reader  is  referred. 

In  conclusion,  it  is  hoped  that  the  manner  in  which  the 
work  is  prepared  will  render  it  more  acceptable  to  the  reader, 
who  is  requested  to  unite  with  the  author  in  the  heartfelt 
prayer  that  He,  whose  cause  is  at  stake,  would  make  this,  and 
every  similar  effort  of  his  servants,  effectual  to  the  furtherance 
of  His  glory,  in  the  promotion  of  peace,  purity,  and  charity 
in  his  churches,  and  the  overthrow  of  all  error,  bigotry,  will- 
worship,  and  superstition. 

Charleston,  S.  C.,  1843. 


CONTENTS. 


BOOK  I. 

PRESBYTERY  THE  SCRIPTURAL  AND  APOSTOLICAL  ORDER 
OF  THE  CHURCH  OF  CHRIST. 

CHAPTER    I . 

THE   TRUE   APOSTOLICAL   OR   MINISTERIAL   SUCCESSION    CLAIMED   BY 
PRESBYTERIANS. 

§  1.  Introductory  remarks,  17.  —  §2.  Our  position  defined,  20.  —  §3.  Apostolicity 
claimed  by  presbyterians  in  all  ages,  20.  —  §  4.  Presbytery  is  the  true  episcopacy, 
27.  —  §  5.  The  apostles  were  both  extraordinary  and  ordinary  ministers,  28.  —  §  6. 
As  ordinary  ministers,  the  apostles  were  presbyters,  and  are  succeeded  by  pres- 
byters, 36.  —  §  7.  The  succession  of  presbyters  is  the  only  ministerial  succession 
that  can  be  certainly  proved,  43. 

CHAPTER   II, 

THE    CLAIMS    OF    PRESBYTERY    TO   THE   MINISTERIAL    SUCCESSION    SUSTAINED  BY 
THE    CONDITION    OF   THE    CHURCH    DURING   OUR  LORD'S    MINISTRY. 

$  1.  The  truth  of  the  opposing  theories  of  prelacy  and  presbytery  must  be  decided 
by  Scripture,  49.— §  2.  Some  determinate  scheme  of  church  government  contain- 
ed in  Scripture,  50.  —  §  3.  The  character  of  the  church  and  its  ministry,  during  our 
Lord's  continuance  with  it,  was  presbyterian  and  not  prelatical,  57. 

CHAPTER   III. 

THE  CLAIMS  OF  PRESBYTERY  TO  THE  TRUE  APOSTOLICAL  OR  MINISTERIAL  SUC- 
CESSION, SUSTAINED  BY  THE  CHARACTER  AND  CONDITION  OF  THE  CHURCH 
WHEN    OUR  LORD   ASCENDED   UP   INTO    HEAVEN. 

4  1.  The  apostles  were  not  commissioned  before  the  delivery  of  the  final  commis- 
sion by  our  ascending  Saviour,  with  an  examination  of  John,  20  :  21,70.  —  $2. 
The  commissions,  recorded  in  the  gospels  of  Matthew  and  of  John,  not  different, 
72.  —  §3.  The  final  commission  delivered  by  Christ  is  the  true  and  only  charter 
of  the  christian  ministry  and  church,  74.  —  §4.  This  commission  was  not  given 
to  the  apostles,  but  to  all  the  disciples,  as  representatives  of  the  church  universal, 
and  includes  in  it  all  ecclesiastical  power  and  jurisdiction,  76. —  §  5.  General  infe- 
rences as  to  the  nature,  extent,  and  designed  effect  of  this  commission,  SS.  —  §  6. 
This  commission  applies  to  presbyters  and  not  to  prelates,  91. 

CHAPTER  IV. 

THE   CLAIMS    OF    PRESBYTERY  TO   THE   MINISTERIAL    SUCCESSION    SUSTAINED   BY 
AN    APPEAL  TO   THE   APOSTOLIC   AGE    OF   THE    CHURCH. 

§  1.  The  powers  and  titles  attributed  to  the  ministry  by  the  apostles,  100.  —  §2. 
There  was  but  one  order  of  permanent  ministers  instituted  in  the  apostolic  church- 
es, 102.  —  §  3.    The  apostles,  as  ordinary  ministers,  were  not  prelates,  but  presby- 

2 


X  CONTENTS. 

ters.  Presbyters,  therefore,  are  their  successors,  101  — §4.  Presbyters,  and  not 
prelates,  are  placed  next  to  the  apostles,  in  the  foundation  of  the  church,  105. — 
§  5.  The  spiritual  officers  of  the  New  Testament  churches  are  ranked  under  the 
classification  of  presbyters  or  bishops,  and  deacons,  without  any  allusion  whatever 
to  prelates,  107.  —  $  6.  The  terms  bishop  and  presbyter,  both  as  they  refer  to  the 
office  and  to  the  individuals  holding-  it,  are  used  throughout  the  New  Testament 
as  perfectly  synonymous,  and  the  very  fact,  that  prelatists  have  usurped  the  title 
of  bishop,  is  proof  positive  of  the  human  origin  of  the  system  of  prelacy.  Many 
objections  are  answered,  1US. 

CHAPTER  V. 

PRESBYTERS    ARE    CLOTHED   BY   APOSTOLIC    AUTHORITY   WITH   ALL  THE 
FUNCTIONS    OF   THE   MINISTRY. 

\  1.  Presbyters  are  divinely  authorized  to  preach  the  gospel,  122.  —  §  2.  Presbyters 
are  divinely  authorized  to  conduct  the  public  worship  of  God,  129.  —  §  3.  Presby- 
ters are  divinely  authorized  to  baptize,  130.  —  §  4.  Presbyters  are  divinely  author- 
ized to  administer  the  Lord's  supper,  132. 

CHAPTER    VI. 

PRESBYTERS   ARE    CLOTHED,   BY    DIVINE   RIGHT,   WITH   THE   POWER   OF 
ECCLESIASTICAL  JURISDICTION. 

i  1.  The  power  of  jurisdiction  explained,  135.  —  §  2.  Proofs  that  this  power  of  juris- 
diction belongs  to  presbyters  by  divine  right,  136.  —  §3.  Proofs  that  presbyters 
exercised  the  power  of  jurisdiction,  under  divine  sanction,  140.  —  §4.  Objections 
answered,  145.  —  §  5.  The  apostles  were  not  prelates  of  the  churches  founded  by 
them,  but  these  churches  were  presided  over  by  one  of  their  own  presbyters, 
chosen  by  themselves,  as  appears  from  numerous  passages,  149.  —  §  6.  This  view 
of  the  apostolic  churches  confirmed  by  the  fathers,  157.  —  §  7.  This  view  of  the 
apostolic  churches  confirmed  by  prelatists  themselves,  161.  —  §  S.  This  view  of 
the  apostolic  churches  explains  all  the  difficulties  thrown  in  our  way  by  prelatists, 
162.  —  §  9.  Proofs  from  the  fathers,  that  presbyters  possess  the  power  of  discipline 
and  excommunication,  the  highest  acts  of  ecclesiastical  jurisdiction,  and  the  pow- 
er generally,  164. 

CHAPTER    VII. 

PRESBYTERS    ARE,   BY    DIVINE    RIGHT,   CLOTHED   WITH   THE   POWER   OF 
ORDINATION. 

1.  The  power  of  presbyters  to  ordain  formerly  acknowledged  by  the  Anglican 
and  Roman  churches,  167.  —  §  2.  The  nature  of  ordination  explained.  169.  —  §  3. 
A  general  argument,  in  favor  of  ordination  by  presbyters,  173.  —  §  4.  The  ordina- 
tion of  Barnabas  and  Saul  was  conferred  by  presbyters,  174. 


CHAPTER   VIII. 

TRESBYTERS  ARE,  BY  DIVINE  RIGHT,  CLOTHED  WITH  THE  POWER  OF  ORDINA- 
TION. THE  SUBJECT  CONTINUED,  AND  PROOF  GIVEN,  THAT  THE  ORDINATION 
OF   TIMOTHY   WAS  CONFERRED   BY   FRESBYTERS. 

§  1.  The  passage  in  1  Tim.  4:  14,  explained, and  its  manifest  proof  of  presbvterian 
ordination  argued,  ls»'v.  —  (j  2.  The  objection,  that  the  ordainers  >>!'  Timothy  were 
prelates,  answered,  187. —  §3.  The  objection,  that  the  word  presbytery  does  not 
refer  to  a  company  of  presbyters,  but  to  the  office,  answered,  and  Calvin  vindi- 
cated, 1S9. —  §4.  The  objection,  that  Paul  alone  ordained  Timothy  answered  ;  in 
which  2  Tim.  1 :  6,  is  explained,  I'M.  —  §  5.  The  objection,  thai  neither  of  these 
passages  refer  to  ordinal  ion.  answered,  and  the  argument  for  the  presbyterial  or- 
dination of  Timothy  concluded,  198. 


CONTENTS.  XI 

CHAPTER    IX. 

PRESBYTERS   ARE   CLOTHED   WITH   THE    POWER   OF    ORDINATION.      THE    SUBJECT 

CONTINUED. 

§  1.  The  ordinations  referred  to  in  Acts,  14  :  23,  were  presbyterial,  200.  —  §  2.  The 
ordinations  conferred  by  Timothy  and  Titus  were  presbyterial,  nor  is  there  pro- 
vision made,  in  the  epistles  addressed  to  them,  for  any  other  than  presbyterial 
ordination,  201.  —  §3.  Conclusion  of  the  scripture  argument  for  the  power  of 
presbyters  to  ordain.    No  evidence  to  be  found  for  prelatical  ordination,  211. 

CHAPTER   X. 

THAT  PRESBYTERS    HAVE   THE   POWER   OF    ORDINATION,   PROVED     BY   AN   APPEAL 
TO   ANTIQUITY. 

§  1.  Presbyterian  ordination  attested  by  facts  and  testimonies,  from  the  earliest  ages, 
212.  —  §  2.  Presbyterian  ordination  confirmed  by  the  judgment  of  the  Schoolmen, 
221.  —  \  3.  Presbyterian  ordination  confirmed  by  the  judgment  of  prelatisls  them- 
selves, 223.  —  §  4.  Presbyterian  ordination  is  sustained  by  the  universal  judgment 
of  the  church,  228.  —  §  5.  Presbyterian  ordination  is,  therefore,  valid  and  regular. 
Objections  answered,  234.  —  §6.  Presbyterian  ordination  is  more  valid,  certain, 
and  regular,  than  prelatical  ordination,  236. 

CHAPTER    XI. 

ON    DEACONS,  AS   A  THIRD   ORDER   OF   THE   CHRISTIAN   MINISTRY. 

§  1.  The  ground  assumed  by  prelacy,  242  —  §  2.  The  deacon,  according  to  Scripture, 
not  an  order  in  the  christian  ministry,  but  a  distinct  office,  242.  —  §  3.  This  conclu- 
sion sustained  by  eminent  prelatists,  244.  —  §  4.  This  conclusion  sustained  also  by 
the  Romish  church,  by  the  primitive  fathers,  and  by  general  custom,  247.  —  §5 
The  arguments  for  the  prelatical  theory  of  deacons  answered,  250.  —  §  6.  The 
primitive  and  modern  prelatical  deacons  entirely  different,  and  prelacy,  therefore, 
an  innovation  upon  the  apostolic  polity  of  the  church,  252. 

CHAPTER  XII. 

THE  ALLEGED  PRELATICAL  CHARACTER  OF  EPAPHRODITUS,  OF  TIMOTHY  AND 
TITUS,   OF   JAMES,  AND   OF   THE    SEVEN   ANGELS,   EXAMINED  AND    DISPROVED. 

§  1.  The  claims  of  Svlvanus,  Andronicus,  and  Junia,  to  be  prelates,  considered,  and 
a  general  reply  given  to  all  such  claims,  254.  —  §2.  The  alleged  prelatical  char- 
acter of  Epapliroditus  examined,  257.  — $3.  The  alleged  prelatical  character  of 
Timothy  and  Titus  examined,  25S.  —  §  4.  The  alleged  prelatical  character  of  James 
examined,  265.  —  §  5.  The  alleged  prelatical  character  of  the  seven  angels  of  the 
seven  churches  examined,  270. 

CHAPTER   XIII. 

THE   ALLEGED   PRELATICAL   CHARACTER   OF   THE  JEWISH    CHURCH    EXAMINED 
AND   DISPROVED. 

§  1.  The  argument,  founded  upon  the  prelatical  character  of  the  Jewish  hierarchy, 
examined,  278. —  §  2.  The  argument  for  prelacy,  founded  upon  the  heavenly  hier- 
archy, examined  and  disproved,  2S6.  —  §3.  The  argument  for  prelacy,  founded 
upon  the  polity  of  the  Jewish  synagogue,  examined  and  disproved,  287. 

CHAPTER  XIV. 

THE  ARGUMENT  FOR  PRELACY,  DERIVED  FROM  ITS  EARLY  PREVALENCE  AND 
ALLEGED  UNIVERSALITY,  EXAMINED  AND  DISPROVED  ;  AND  ITS  GRADUAL  IN- 
TRODUCTION   CLEARLY   ACCOUNTED   FOR. 

$  1.  The  argument  for  prelacy,  from  its  early  introduction,  examined,  295.  — §  2.  The 
argument  for  prelacy  derived  from  its  universal  prevalence,  307. 


xii  conti:ni>. 


BOOK  II. 

THE  CLAIMS  OF  PRESBYTERY  TO  THE  TRUE  APOSTOLICAL 
OR  MINISTERIAL  Sl/OOESS  K  >.\.  S  I  STAIN  I  •;  1)  BY  AN  APPEAL 
TO  THE  FATHERS,  THE  SCHOOLMEN,  THE  R  EFORMERS,  AND 
TO  THE  ROMISH,  ANGLICAN,  AND  OTHER  CHURCHES. 

CHAPTER    I. 

PRELIMINARY    REMARKS    ON   THE     NATURE,    DESIGN,   AND    VALUE     OF    THE 
TESTIMONY    OF    THE    FATHERS. 

i>  1.  Scripture,  and  not  the  fathers,  the  only  authoritative  standard  of  faith  or  prac- 
tice, 311.  —  §  2.  On  the  delusive  value  attached  to  the  fathers  based  on  the  ambi- 
guity of  the  term  old,  316.  —  §  •'•  On  the  delusion  as  to  the  characterand  amount 
of  the  testimony  of  the  fathers,  318.  —  §4.  The  testimony  afforded  by  the  fathers 
is  discordant,  and  therefore  inconclusive,  320. —  §5.  The  fathers,  themselves, 
teach  us  not  to  trust  in  the  testimony  of  the  fathers,  as  to  what  is  scriptural  and 
apostolical,  322.  —  §  6.  Prelatists  themselves  teach  us.  that  even  the  universal  con- 
sent of  the  fathers  is  not  sullicient  to  establish  any  doctrine  or  practice,  323.  —  ^7. 
The  testimony  of  the  fathers,  according  to  their  able.'  I  advocate,  not  applicable  to 
this  prelatic  controversy,  325.  —  §  8.  How  far  the  testimony  of  the  fathers  is  to  be 
admitted,  326.  —  §  9.  Our  reasons  for  proceeding  to  adduce  the  testimonies  ol  the 
lathers;  and  the  great  weight  to  be  attached  to  any  remaining  evidence  in  the 
fathers  in  favor  of  presbytery,  327.  —  §  10.  The  expedients  of  prelatieal  sophistry, 
in  reference  to  the  testimony  of  the  fathers,  illustrated  in  thirteen  introductory 
cautions  submitted  to  the  reader,  32S. 

CHAPTER    II. 

THE   TESTIMONY    OF   THE    APOSTOLIC    FATHERS   TO    THE    CLAIMS    OF    PRESBYTERY 
TO   THE   TRUE   MINISTERIAL    SUCCESSION. 

4  1.  Classification  of  the  fathers,  336.  —  $  2.  The  true  value  of  the  apostolical  fathers, 
336.  — §3.  The  testimony  of  Clement  Romanus,  340.  — §  t.  The  testimony  of 
Hermas  and  Polyearp,  346.  —  §  5.  The  testimony  of  [gnalius;  even  his  smaller 
epistles  are  interpolated,  especially  on  the  subject  of  the  ministry,  349.  —  §  6.  The 
epistles  of  Ignatius,  corrupted  as  they  are,  do  not  support  the  cause  of  prelacy, 
-  >\  7  The  epistles  of  Ignatius  are  favorable  to  toe  cause  of  presbytery,  35a. 
—  §  8.  Concluding  remarks  on  the  testimony  of  the  apostolical  fathers,  359, 

CHAPTER    III. 

THE   TESTIMONY    OF   THE    PRIMITIVE    FATHERS.   IN    FAVOR   OF    THE   CLAIMS    OF 
PRESBYTERY   TO   THE   TRUE    MINISTERIAL    SUCCESSION. 

§  1.  The  testimony  of  Papias,  and  Justin  Martyr.366.  —  §2.  The  testimony  of  Ire- 

nseus,368,  —  J  3.  The  testii iy  of  Victor,  bishop  of  Rome,  Clement  Alexandri- 

nus,  and  Tertullian,  372.  —  §4.  The  testimony  ol  Hippolytus,  Origen,and  Greg- 
ory Thaumaturgus,  377.-4  5.  The  testimony  of  Cyprian,  Firmilian,  and  Novatus, 
360. 

CHAPTER,    IY. 

THE  TESTIMONY    OF  THE    LATER   FATHERS    IN    FAVOR  OF   THE    CLAIMS    OF 
PRESBYTERY    TO  IAL  SUCCESSION. 

^  1.  The  great  importance  of  the  testimony  of  the  later  lathers  in  favor  of  presby- 
tery, 385. — §  2.  The  testimony  of  the  fathers  generally,  in  favor  of  presbytery, 
ana  i  "x7  --  ■■ ':.  The  testimony  of  Hilary, 390. — $  1.  The  testimony 

oi  Damasus,  391  -§5  The  testimony  of  Aerius,  391.  -  §6.  The  testimony  of 
Basil,  Gp  eon  Nazianzen,  Gregory  Nyssene,  and  Ambrose,  393,  —  §7.  The  tes- 
timony of  Epiphanius,  ami  of  the  Apostolical  <  lonstituubns  and  <  !anons,396  —  §  s. 
'I  he  testimony  of  Coelua  Sedulius  Scot  us.  and  of  Chrysostom,  398.—$  9.  The  testi- 
mony of  Jerome,  100. — J  H>.  The  testimony  of  Augustine,  104.  —  §  11.  The  tes- 
timony of  Paphnutius,  Synesius,  Pelagius,  and  Severus,  404.  —  $  12.  The  testi- 
mony of  Theodore!.  Primasius,  Sedulius,  the  Paulicians,  and  others,  106, 


CONTENTS.  Xlll 

CHAPTER    V. 

THE   TESTIMONY    OF   THE    SCHOOLMEN.    OR   FATHERS    OF  THE  LATER  AND   MIDDLE 


AGES,   TO    THE    CLAIMS    OF    PRESBYTERY. 


400 


CHAPTER    VI. 


THE  TESTIMONY  OF  THE  ROMISH,  GREEK,  AND  SYRIAN  CHURCHES,  IN  FAVOR  OF 
THE   CLAIMS    OF    PRESBYTERY. 415 

CHAPTER    VII. 

THE  TESTIMONY  OF  THE  REFORMED  CHURCHES,  INCLUDING  THE  ENGLISH,  TO 
THE  CLAIM  OF  PRESBYTERY  TO  THE  TRUE  APOSTOLICAL  OR  MINISTERIAL 
SUCCESSION 424 


BOOK  III. 

THE  ANTIQUITY  OF  PRESBYTERY;  WITH  AN  EXHIBITION  OF 
THE  PRESBYTERIANISM  OF  THE  ANCIENT  CULDEES  OF 
IRELAND  AND  SCOTLAND,  AND  ALSO  OF  ST.  PATRICK. 

CHAPTER    I. 

THE   ANTIQUITY    OF    PRESBYTERY. 

§  1.  All  the  churches  founded  by  the  apostles,  and  during  the  age  of  the  apostolical 
and  primitive  fathers,  were  presbyterian,  441. —  §  2.  The  churches  of  Gaul,  Alex- 
andria, Egypt,  Scythia,  Bavaria,  and  tlie  East,  were  presbyterian,  444.  —  §  3.  The 
primitive  churches  in  Britain  were  presbyterian,  449.  —  §  4.  The  primitive  church- 
es in  Ireland  were  presbyterian,  460. 

CHAPTER    II. 

THE    ANTIQUITY    OF    PRESBYTERY,    CONTINUED. 

§  1.  The  primitive  churches  in  Scotland  were  presbyterian,  4S2.  —  §  2.  The  govern- 
ment of  the  ancient  Culdees  of  Ireland  and  of  Scotland,  was  presbyterian,  485. 
—  §3.  The  Paulician,  Aerian,  and  Vaudois  churches  were  presbyterian,  501. 

CHAPTER   III. 

THE   ANTIQUITY   OF    PRESBYTERY.      THE    SAME    SUBJECT   CONTINUED. 

§  1.  The  Lollards,  the  Syrian,  the  Hussite,  the  Bohemian,  the  Episcopal  in  South 
Carolina  in  1785,  the  Reformed  and  the  Biscay  churches,  were  also  presbyterian, 
517.  —  (j  2.  The  presbyterian  church  the  oldest  of  all  others,  528.  —  §  3.  The  presby- 
terian church  the  oldest  of  all  the  western  reformed  churches,  including  the  Ro- 
mish ;  with  an  answer  to  the  objection,  '  Where  was  the  presbyterian  church 
before  Luther? '530.  —  §4.  The  presbyterian  church  the  oldest  in  the  United 
States,  and  in  South  Carolina,  as  compared  with  the  Romish  and  episcopal 
churches,  53S. —  §  5.  Conclusion,  542. 


BOOK    I. 


PRESBYTERY  THE  SCRIPTURAL  AND  APOSTOLIC  ORDER  OF  THE 
CHURCH  OP  CHRIST. 


CHAPTER   I. 


THE  TRUE  APOSTOLICAL  OR  MINISTERIAL  SUCCESSION 
CLAIMED  BY  PRESBYTERIANS. 


§  1.     Introductory  remarks. 

We  have  in  a  former  work  conducted  our  readers  through 
an  extended  examination  of  the  mysterious  and  transcenden- 
tal doctrine  of  prelatical  apostolical  succession.1  And,  surely, 
in  no  other  instance  has  there  been  such  a  manifestation  of  the 
blinding  influence  of  controversy,  in  magnifying  into  mon- 
strous proportion  some  limb  of  the  body  of  truth,  and  in 
embodying,  to  the  diseased  eye,  some  self-originated  theory, 
in  the  habiliments  of  divinity.  The  Persians,  who  are  heresi- 
archs  from  the  pure  sultan  faith,  in  consequence  of  their 
desperate  struggles  to  maintain  the  claims  of  Ali  to  the  true 
succession  of  the  impostor's  vacant  office,  have  been  led  to 
regard  him  as  a  divine  being,  nay,  even  as  God,  and  to  give 
him,  practically,  the  first  place  in  their  reverence  and  affections. 
And  in  the  same  way  prelatists,  by  their  ceaseless  efforts  to 
substantiate  their  intolerant  and  popish  dogma  of  the  succes- 
sion, have  been  led  to  exalt  this  doctrine  so  far  as  to  make  it, 
practically,  the  great  fundamental  tenet  and  corner-stone  of 
their  religion.  The  church  has  been  made  to  displace  Christ, 
who  is  its  only  and  ever-living  Head.  The  ministry  has 
been  substituted  for  the  divine  and  omnipresent  energies  of 
the.  Holy  Spirit.  And  Christianity,  pure,  spiritual,  and 
heavenly,  has  been  transformed  into  a  system  of  outward 
rite&  and  ordinances.  This  leaven  has  not  only  begun  to 
work,  but  is  now  extensively  diffusing  itself  through  the  mass 
of  society.  An  alarm  has  been  blown  in  Zion.  The  voice 
of  warning,  rebuke,  and  condemnation,  is  now  heard  from 

1)     The   Prelatical    Doctrine   of    against  the  exclusive  assumptions  of 
Apostolical  Succession  Examined,  and     Popery  and  High-Churchism,  1841. 
the    Protestant     Ministry    Defended 

3 


18  »         THE    AWAKENING    INTEREST  [BOOK   I. 

high  places,  while  the  enemy  is  continually  rejoicing  over 
fresh  deserters  added  to  his  ranks.  Every  where,  and  in  all 
denominations,  there  is  an  earnest  expectation  of  coming 
changes,  and  of  the  hour  and  the  power  of  darkness.  All  are 
on  the  alert.  All  are  inquiring  after  the  old  paths,  and  exam- 
ining well  into  the  foundations  upon  which  they  stand,  and 
the  claims  which  they  are  warranted  in  maintaining.  A 
deep  and  growing  conviction  exists,  that  there  is  but  one 
foundation  upon  which  any  doctrine  or  practice  can  be  estab- 
lished as  of  divine  institution,  and  that  is,  the  word  of  God  ; 
and  that  whatever  wants  its  sanction  and  support,  if  it  pretends 
to  divine  authority,  or  to  be  an  article  of  the  faith,  involves  a 
blasphemous  assumption  of  the  divine  prerogatives. 

It  is  full  time  that  the  presbyterian  church  also  should  be 
up  and  doing.  Every  day  brings  with  it  fresh  arguments  for 
activity  and  zeal.  Every  day  shows  us,  that  men  are  letting  go 
their  principles,  being  driven  about  by  every  wind  of  doctrine, 
and  beguiled  by  the  cunning  craftiness  of  specious  and  sophis- 
tical pretensions.  It  is  time  for  us  to  realize  the  truth,  that 
the  fault  of  all  this  apostacy  and  insecurity,  rests  mainly  with 
ourselves.  We  have  suffered  the  rising  generation  to  grow 
up  ignorant  of  our  principles,  and  of  those  strong  and  invin- 
cible scriptural  grounds  upon  which  our  system  '  is  builded 
of  God.'  And  thus  have  we  beheld  many,  who  professed  to 
be  the  friends,  and  even  the  pillars,  of  our  church,  forsaking 
us  and  becoming  our  warmest  opponents.  Let  us  then  learn 
wisdom  by  our  past  experience,  and  from  defeat  reap  victory. 
And  let  every  professed  presbyterian,  feel  that  he  owes  it  to 
the  church  with  which  he  is  connected,  or  in  which  he  has 
been  brought  up  ;  to  the  community  in  which  he  lives  ;  to  all 
those  from  whom  he  di tiers  ;  lo  himself;  and  above  all  to  the 
divine  Head  of  the  church;  to  investigate  the  nature,  the 
grounds,  and  the  principles  of  presbyterianism,  that  he  may 
give  a  reason  of  the  hope  that  is  in  him  to  every  one  that 
asketh  it.  Parents  should  teach  their  children,  teachers  their 
scholars,  and  bishops  their  flocks,  those  'first  principles  o| 
the  oracles  of  God,'  which  are  the  elements  of  our  faith,  and 
the  guides  to  our  practice.  We  will  not  glory  in  ourselves. 
or  in  what  we  arc  personally,  but  well  may  we  glory  in 
belonging  to  a  church  thai  is  scriptural  in  her  doctrine,  apos- 
tolic in  her  constitution,  and  primitive  in  her  discipline. 

More  especially  should  this  spirii  animate  all  who  arc  per- 
mittee! to  receive  ordination  at  the  hands  of  our  church — to 
minister  at  her  altars,  and  to  preach  through  her  the  unsearch- 
able riches  of  Christ.     The  apostle  Paul,  who  was  among  the 


CHAP.  I.]         AND  DUTY  OF  THE  CHURCH.  19 

greatest  of  all  the  apostles,  in  gifts  preeminent,  in  graces 
heavenly,  in  labors  more  abundant,  in  success  more  illustri- 
ous ;  in  addressing  the  outcast  and  perishing  Gentiles,  could 
exultingly  declare, '  inasmuch  as  I  am  the  apostle  of  the  Gen- 
tiles, I  magnify  mine  office.'  And  shall  not  they  who  are  suc- 
cessors to  this  same  apostle,  in  his  ordinary  ministry,  and  by 
the  laying  on  of  the  same  hands ;  and  who  are  sent  forth 
to  the  same  Gentile  race,  for  the  same  glorious  end  ;  shall 
they  not  also  magnify  their  office  ?  True,  they  are  not  apostles, 
as  he  was  an  apostle ;  they  are  not,  as  he  was,  called  by  the 
immediate  voice  of  the  Son  of  God  ;  endued  with  the  pleni- 
tude of  all  divine  and  supernatural  gifts ;  filled  with  the  in- 
spiration of  the  ever-blessed  Spirit,  and  commissioned  as  an 
ambassador  to  the  whole  world.  It  was  not,  however,  in  this 
extraordinary  capacity,  as  legate  of  the  exalted  Redeemer,  the 
apostle  rejoiced  ;  but  in  that  ordinary  character  of  a  minister 
of  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  by  which  he  was  empowered  to 
preach  the  glad  tidings  of  salvation  to  the  long  lost  Gentiles. 
It  was  as  he  stood  forth  the  exemplar  and  representative  of  all 
future  ministers  of  Christ,  in  all  coming  ages  of  the  church, 
the  apostle  magnified  his  office.  It  was  as  by  the  rich  grace 
of  God  he  had  been  made  a  preacher  of  righteousness,  a  co- 
worker with  other  presbyters,  ordained  by  their  hands,  asso- 
ciated with  them  in  the  ordination  of  those  who  should  be 
able  to  teach,  and  to  set  apart  others  also,  that  Paul  gloried. 

As  presbyters,  therefore,  who  have  been  called  of  God, 
though  not  immediately,  yet  mediately  by  his  Holy  Spirit ; 
who  have  been  called,  also,  by  his  church,  through  the  offices 
of  men  chosen  and  appointed  for  this  work ;  and  whose  high 
calling  it  is  to  speak  unto  the  Gentiles  the  wonderful  things 
of  God ;  shall  not  we  also,  who  are  put  unto  this  ministry, 
magnify  our  office,  not  in  the  spirit  of  boasting,  but  of  humble 
and  devout  thanksgiving  ?  Our  office  ?  it  is  divine  in  its 
origin,  holy  in  its  services,  heavenly  in  its  aim ;  unlimited  in 
the  field  opened  by  it  to  the  sublimest  powers  of  man ;  and 
transcending  all  human  thought  in  the  glory  and  the  grandeur 
of  its  everlasting  issues.  The  office  of  the  presbyterate,  which 
is  also  the  office  of  the  episcopate,  is  the  ascension  gift  of  the 
exalted  Mediator,  and  the  essential  bond  and  preserver  of  his 
church.  There  is  no  other  office  in  the  church,  or  beyond  it, 
equal  in  power,  influence,  and  glory.  This  is  the  only  bish- 
opric recognised  in  scripture,  or  authorized  thereby  ;  the  truly 
primitive  and  apostolical  episcopacy,  in  and  by  which  there  is 
preserved,  in  the  church  of  the  living  God,  an  unbroken  suc- 
cession of  faithful  heralds  of  the  cross. 


20  WHAT    WE    CLAIM.  [BOOK    I. 


§  2.      Our  position  defined. 

We  are  thus  led  to  that  truth,  upon  the  demonstration  of 
which  we  would  now  enter  —  the  apostolicity  of  a  presbyte- 
rian  ministry,  in  contrariety  to  that  which  is  prelatical.  Not 
that  we  can  hope  to  preclude  captious  doubt  and  cavilling 
objection,  where  the  very  nature  of  the  subject  admits  not  of 
absolute  demonstration  ;  but  that  we  hope  to  produce  sufficient 
evidence  to  warrant  the  most  unwavering  assurance  of  those 
who  are  willing  to  abide  by  the  truth  of  God,  to  the  exclusion 
of  all  human  authority,  tradition,  and  the  will-worship  and 
policy  of  men.  We  affirm,  then,  that  presbyter-bishops  are 
the  only  bishops  recognised  in  the  word  of  God ;  that  they 
are  empowered  to  discharge  all  the  offices  and  functions  of 
the  christian  ministry ;  that  they  succeed  to  all  that  authority, 
and  to  all  those  duties,  which  have  been  devolved,  by  the 
apostles,  upon  their  successors  in  the  ordinary  and  permanent 
ministry  of  the  gospel ;  and  that  there  is  no  other  order  of 
ministers,  distinct  from  and  superior  to  them,  to  whom  is  given 
the  exclusive  possession  of  all  ecclesiastical  authority.  We 
therefore  openly  controvert  and  deny  the  truth  of  the  position 
laid  down  by  prelatists,  that  there  are  three  original  and  es- 
sentially distinct  orders  in  the  ministry  —  bishops,  presbyters, 
and  deacons ;  each  instituted  by  divine  right,  through  the  in- 
spiration of  the  Holy  Ghost ;  and  each  of  them  essential  to 
the  valid  constitution  of  a  church  of  Christ.  This  theory  of 
ecclesiastical  polity  and  of  ministerial  castes,  is,  we  think,  im- 
properly denominated  episcopacy,  since  episcopacy  '  is  allow- 
ed to  be  but  an  accident  to  the  system,'1  and  since  episcopacy, 
whether  interpreted  of  the  office,  and  thus  meaning  superin- 
tendence and  oversight,  or  of  the  officer,  who  is  called  eniaxonog 
or  bishop,  is  claimed  by  presbyterians,  and  is  fully  asserted  by 
them.2  We  reject,  therefore,  prelacy,  not  episcopacy.  W  e 
abjure  modern  and  not  primitive,  diocesan  and  not  scriptural 
episcopacy. 

§  3.     Apostolicity  claimed  by  presbyterians  in  all  ages. 

So  strangely  confident  have  the  advocates  of  this  system 
of  prelacy  become,  through  the  great  forbearance  and  silence 
of  their  opponents,  thai   nothing  is  more   common    in   the 

1)  Oxford   Tracts,  vol.  i.  p.  44.     presbyters  who  finished  their  duties 
See  also  Lect.  on  Apos.  Sue.  Lect.  i.      in  their  episcopacy. 

2)  Clemens's  Romanus,  speaks  of 


CHAP.  1.1  IGNORANCE    OF    PRELATISTS.  21 

writings  of  its  advocates,  both  Romish,  Anglican,  and  Amer- 
ican, than  the  assertion,  which  we  are  sure  we  have  met  with 
in  some  fifty  different  places,  that  to  such  an  episcopacy,  and 
to  such  a  ministerial  succession  from  the  apostles,  presbyte- 
rians  lay  no  claim  and  make  no  manner  of  pretension.1  That 
such  asseverations  must  arise  from  profound  ignorance  of 
what  presbyterianism  is,  and  what  presbyterian  authors  and 
standards  clearly  affirm,  and  are  not  put  forth  as  intentional 
misstatements,  we  can  readily  believe ;  since,  in  all  the  vari- 
ous prelatical  writers  we  have  examined,  we  have  found 
little  beyond  the  hackneyed  repetition  of  some  garbled 
extracts ;  or  of  some  partial  admissions,  given  in  the  kindness 
of  friendship  and  at  the  prompting  of  liberality;  or  of  the 
numerous  burlesque  caricatures  of  our  presbyterian  polity  and 
doctrine.  These  seem  to  be  handed  down  from  generation 
to  generation,  like  the  armor  of  ancient  knights,  and  with 
even  a  more  careful  anxiety  than  the  line  of  prelatical  succes- 
sion itself.2  However  this  may  be,  certain  it  is,  that  prelat- 
ical writers  practically  exemplify,  and  in  the  most  striking 
manner,  (what  they  are  so  fond  of  charging  upon  others,)  a 
belief  in  the  very  powerful  efficacy,  upon  the  generality  of 
men,  of  bold,  fearless,  and  constant  assertion. 

Now,  like  every  other  error,  this  affirmation  rests  upon 
some  truth.  To  the  powers  involved  in  the  prelatical  doctrine 
of  apostolical  succession,  prelatists  are  undoubtedly  correct  in 
saying,  that  presbyterians  lay  no  claim.  We  repudiate  all 
such  assumed  prerogatives,  as  equally  contrary  to  scripture, 
reason,  and  charity.  And  while  we  do  plead  for  '  the  divine 
right  of  Paul's  presbytery,'  as  Rutherford  describes  it,  yet  not 
in  any  such  sense  as  to  exclude  those  who  are  not  presbyte- 
rian in  polity,  while  sound  and  orthodox  in  the  catholic  faith, 
from  a  full  participation  in  all  the  essential  benefits  of  the 
Church  of  Christ,  though  self-excluded  from  what  we  esteem 
some  of  its  important  privileges.  And  as  our  prelatic  friends 
seem  to  calculate  largely  upon  the  very  boldness  with  which 
they  represent  their  church  as  the  only  body  which  even  pre- 
tends to  possess  this  ministerial  succession  from  the  apostles, 
'  the  only  body,  therefore,  which  can  be  certain  that  they  have 

1)  E.g.  Bishop  Kenrick's  Theol.  to  succession.' * 
Dogmat.  vol.  i.  p.  235-246;  Oxford  2)  Ofthis,and  the  spirit  of  mis- 
Tracts,  vol.  i.  p.  232  ;  Works  of  the  stating,  some  illustrations  will  be 
Rev.  William  Jones,  vol.  iv.  p.  494.  given  in  the  course  of  the  work. 
So  the  Romanist,  who  replied  to  Dr.  We  have  materials  enough  from  our 
Sherlock  on  the  Notes  of  the  Church,  own  reading  to  present  a  very  full  ex- 
says,    'They  —  Luther's   or    Calvin's  hibition,  were  it  necessary. 

disciples  —  do  not  so  much  as  pretend  „     „         ,_     _.    _.     _  _. 

1  f  #  gee  Notes  of  the  Ch.  Ex.  p.  54. 


22  TESTIMONY    OF    THE    CL'LDEES  [iJOOK   I. 

the  true  word  and  sacraments  to  give  unto  the  people,' l  it 
may  be  well  to  show,  that,  however  deficient  we  may  be 
thought  by  any  in  our  arguments,  we  come  not  behind  the 
very  chiefest  in  the  confident  assertion  of  our  apostolicity 
both  in  our  ministerial  and  in  our  doctrinal  succession.  We 
will  therefore  present  to  our  readers  some  specimens  of  the 
manner  in  which  presbyterians,  both  ancient  and  modern, 
have  been  wont  to  represent  their  claims. 

And  first,  as  it  regards  the  Culdees,  that  noble  fountain  of 
gospel  truth  and  order. 

'  Bede,'  says  Dr.  Jamieson,2  '  gives  an  extract  of  a  letter 
from  Laurence,  who  succeeded  Augustine  as  Bishop  of  Can- 
terbury A.  D.  605,  to  the  Scots  who  inhabited  Ireland,  in 
which  he  says:  '  Bishop  Dagan, coming  to  us, not  only  refus- 
ed to  eat  with  us,  but  even  to  take  his  repast  in  the  same 
house  in  which  we  were  entertained.'  This  Dagan,  it  is  said, 
came  from  the  monastery  of  Bangor,  in  Ireland,  to  be  bishop 
to  the  Scots.  It  is  evident  that  he  treated  the  votaries  of 
Rome,  not  excepting  the  bishop  of  Canterbury  himself,  as  if 
they  had  been  actually  excommunicated.  He  viewed  them 
as  men  with  whom  he  was  not  so  much  as  to  eat ;  nay,  as 
even  communicating  pollution  to  the  place  where  they  did  eat.' 
'  It  is  evident,  that  this  pertinacity  of  the  Culdees  greatly 
piqued  the  Romanists,  who  deemed  it  the  highest  presump- 
tion, in  men  living  in  such  distant  regions,  to  pretend  in  any 
thing  to  differ  from  those  who  pleaded  the  transmission  of  the 
Keys  from  the  apostle  Peter.' 

Express  mention  is  made  of  these  Culdees  in  the  second 
council  of  Cabilon,  or  Chalons,  A.  D.  813.  '  There  are,'  it  is 
said  in  their  acts,  'in  certain  places  Scots, who  call  themselves 
bishops,  and  contemning  many,  without  the  license  of  their 
lords  or  superiors,  ordain  presbyters  and  deacons.''  Cummian, 
in  the  seventh  century,  who  was  induced  to  conform  to  the 
Romish  church,  upbraids  the  Culdees  with  dissenting  from 
other  churches,  and  tells  them  it  was  heretical  pravity  to  affirm 
that  Rome  erred  and  that  Britons  alone  were  wise.3  Oswald, 
prince  of  Northumberland,  who  had  received  baptism  among 
the  Irish,  sent  to  Hy  for  a  Culdee  bishop,  taking  no  notice  of 
Paulinus,  the  Romish  bishop  at  York,  nor  of  James,  the  dea- 
con, his  companion.' 

Clemens,  a  Scot,  in  the  eighth  cenlury,  who  was  given  over 
to  the  secular  power  and  devoted  to  the  flames,  on  the  ground 

1)  Oxf.  Tr.  vol.  i.  p.  11.  3)  Ledwich's  Antiquities  of  Ire- 

2)  See  Hist.  Ace.  of  the  Ancient    land,  p.  109. 
Culdees,  Edinb.  1811,  4to.  p.  221-226.  4)  Ibid,  p.  109. 


CHAP.  I.]  AND    ALBIGENSES.  23 

of  his  opposition  to  the  authority  claimed  by  the  Romish 
church,  among  other  things,  '  did  reprove  Boniface,  that  he 
did  so  advance  the  authority  of  the  Roman  bishop,  seeing  all 
teachers  are  equally  successors  of  the  apostles.' x 

Nor  could  any  thing  induce  the  Culdees  to  conform  to  the 
Romish  church.  They  chose  rather  to  forfeit  their  church 
and  property  than  desert  their  principles,  and  thus  allowed 
themselves  to  be  expelled  from  all  their  ancient  seats,  until 
they  were  gradually  lost  among  the  growing  multitude  of 
Romanized  christians.2 

To  this  remarkable  testimony  of  the  Culdees  may  be 
added  that  of  the  Waldenses  and  the  Albigenses,  of  whom 
we  are  informed,  that,  amid  all  their  bloody  and  ferocious 
persecutions,  whatever  names  of  reproach  might  be  heaped 
upon  them  by  their  enemies,  they  would  acknowledge  no 
appellation  save  that  of  '  apostolicals,'  inasmuch  as  they 
claimed  to  be  the  uncorrupted  successors  and  followers  of 
St.  Paul  and  the  other  apostles.3  They  testified  with  their 
blood,  that '  the  polity  of  the  church  of  Rome  was  neither 
good  nor  holy,  nor  established  by  Jesus  Christ,'  and  that 
'  archbishops,  bishops,  and  other  prelates  ordained  by  the 
church  of  Rome,  were  not  true.'4 

The  same  claims  are  put  forth  by  all  the  churches  of  the 
reformation,  which  in  their  confessions  harmonize  in  repre- 
senting their  ministry —  which  was  that  of  presbyters  —  as 
of  divine  institution,  as  apostolical,  and  as  no  new  appoint- 
ment, but  '  most  ancient,  and  from  God  himself.' 5 

Calvin  thus  speaks ;  '  Whereas  I  have  indiscriminately 
called  those  who  govern  the  churches,  bishops,  presbyters, 
and  pastors,  I  have  done  so  according  to  the  usage  of  scrip- 
ture ....  for  whoever  executes  the  office  of  ministers  of 
the  gospel,  to  them  the  scriptures  give  the  title  of  bishops.'6 
He  thus  teaches,  that  '  there  is  one  episcopacy  which  is 
Christ's  alone,  whereof  every  minister  of  the  g-ospcl  has  an 
entire  and  equal  share.' 

In  his  response  to  the  work  of  Hadrian  Saravia,  in  de- 
fence of  the  hierachy,  Beza,  alluding  to  his  own  tract,  '  De 

1)  Hoinbar  Annal.  lib.  3,  &c,  in  6)  See  Comment,  on  Titus  1,  5. 
Jamieson's  History  of  the  Culdees,  p.  See  also  Instit.  JB.  4,  ch.  3,  §  8.  Com- 
237.  ment.  on  Phil.  1:1,  and   Inst.  Lib.  4, 

2)  See  Ledwich's  Antiquities  of  cap.  4,  513  and  14,  and  on  Eph.  4:11. 
Ireland,  p.  112.  For  a  complete  collection  of  all  the 

3)  See  Faber's  Albigenses,  p.  195,  passages  from  Calvin,  bearing  on  this 
Blair's  Waldenses.  subject,  and  a  refutation  of  the  igno- 

4)  Allix,  on  the  Anc.  Ch.  of  the  rant  and  wilful  misrepresentations  of 
Albig.  p.  177,  178.  his   sentiments,  see  Dr.  Miller  on  the 

5)  See  quoted  in  B.  2,  ch.  iii.  Ministry.     2d  ed.  Part  ii.  Letter  vi. 


24  CLAIMS    OF    THE    PURITANS  [BOOK   I. 

Triplici  Episcopate,'  or  the  triple  Episcopacy,  thus  speaks. 
1  Let  those  who  will  go  now  and  wonder,  that  a  triple  epis- 
copate should  be  constituted  by  us  ;  one,  namely,  that  which 
is  evidently  divine,  constituted  by  the  apostles,  and  which 
we  desire  to  be  restored,  another  human,  by  which  an  order 
(or  matter  of  arrangement)  was  imperceptibly  changed  into 
a  grade,  (or  distinct  rank,)  which  may  truly  be  enjoyed  by 
those  who  are  persuaded,  that  the  right  use  of  it  can  be  re- 
newed and  maintained  ;  a  third,  oligarchical  and  tyrannical, 
nay,  even  satanic,  which  is  both  to  be  abominated  in  the 
manifestly  anti-christian  despotism  of  Rome,  and  to  be 
reformed  from  the  word  of  God,  in  the  still  remaining  oligar- 
chical domination  of  episcopacy.'1 

This  very  claim  to  superiority,  on  the  ground  of  a  more 
undoubted  apostolicity  in  their  views  of  ministerial  order 
and  succession,  was  the  foundation  of  all  the  puritan  argu- 
ments. It  was  for  maintaining,  that  the  Church  of  England 
had  declined  from  the  ancient  and  apostolic  church,  that 
he  wished  it  brought  back  to  a  purer  model,  and  that  bishops 
and  presbyters  were,  in  scripture,  one  and  the  same  office  — 
that  Cartwright,  in  1570,  was  expelled  from  his  office  in  col- 
lege by  Archbishop  Whitgift,  who  found  it  much  easier  to 
drive  him  from  his  home  and  friends,  than  to  overcome  the 
resistless  force  of  his  argumentation. - 

Thus  also  Axton,  in  his  examination  before  the  bishop  of 
Litchfield,  in  1567,  when  asked  why  he  did  not  consider  him 
to  be  a  lawful  bishop,  answered.3  '  For  three  causes  espe- 
cially :  —  the  first  is,  for  that  you  are  not  ordained  a  bishop 
by  the  consent  of  the  eldership.  The  second,  because  you 
are  not  ordained  to  be  a  bishop  over  any  one  flock,  for  you  say 
you  arc  a  bishop  over  the  whole  diocese,  and  then  you  are  a 
bishop  over  many  (locks  ;  and  yet  you  do  not  think  that  you 
are  bishop  (that  is,  pastor)  over  any  of  these  congregations. 
The  third,  because  you  arc  not  chosen  to  be  a  governor  in 
the  church  of  God  by  the  election  of  the  people.' 

The  church  of  Scotland  laid  the  very  basis  of  her  reforma- 
tion, in  the  deep  scriptural  principles  of  ministerial  parity  and 
presbyterial  episcopacy.4  She  resisted  any  conformity  or 
subjection  to  the  English  hierachy,  through  a  century  of  alter- 

1)  Rcspons.   and   Sarav.   p.   177,  3)  See  in  Life  of  Cartwright,  p. 

quoted  in  orig.  in   Plea   for   Presb.  p.  213,  and   Bee  also  Smith's  Reply,  in 

124.  1567,  in  dp.  p.  '207. 

'    2)  See  a  Life  of  Cartwright,  pre-  1)  See  this  fully  shown  by  Pro- 

fixed  to  Hanbury's  ed.  of  Hooker,  vol.  fessor   Jamieson,  in    bis    Nazianzeni 

i.  p.  exxxvii  ..-Hid  Price's*  Hist,  of  Prof.  Quezela  Glasgow,  L697,  pt  i.  ch.  7, 

Nonconf.  vol.  i.  pp.  21  "i  and  p.  210. 


CHAP  I.]      AND  OF  THE  CHURCH  OF  SCOTLAND.  25 

nate  triumph  and  defeat,  of  bloodshed,  suffering,  and  death. 
She  always  thought  herself  superior  to  that  church,  in  being 
presbyterian  and  not  prelatic  in  her  government ;  in  the  com- 
pleteness and  perfection  of  her  reformation  ;  and  in  the  piety. 
devotion,  and  pastoral  character  of  her  clergy.1  In  the  debate 
which  her  divines  held  with  King  Charles,  they  insisted  that 
presbytery  was  de  jure  divino,  by  divine  appointment.2  Such 
also  was  the  decision  of  the  Westminster  Assembly  of  divines, 
until,  by  the  growing  power  and  tumult  of  the  Erastian  party, 
it  was  decided,  that  presbyterianism  was  merely  lawful.3 
"When  parliament  imposed  the  oath  which  contained  a  clause 
to  endeavor  the  extirpation  of  prelacy,  many  of  the  members 
of  this  assembly,  among  whom  were  Dr.  Burgess,  and  Mr. 
Gataker,  refused  to  take  it,  lest  they  should  seem  to  condemn 
all  episcopacy.  The  language,  therefore,  was  modified  so 
as  to  define  the  human  inventions  of  the  prelacy  in  contra- 
distinction to  the  primitive  episcopacy.4  In  an  answer  to 
the  questions  of  the  parliament  touching  jus  divinum,  pub- 
lished in  1646,  it  is  said,  ;  our  ministers  are  descended  from 
the  apostles  whom  Christ  ordained  to  preach,  and  they  were 
sent  to  all  nations  to  convert  men  to  the  christian  faith,  and 
they  also  ordained  elders  in  every  church  in  every  city  or 
town,  and  after  them  they  left  others  in  their  places  to  do  it. 
Tit.  1 :  5.  And  thus  church  officers  were  ordained  by  them  of 
their  own  calling,  successively,  ever  since.'5  The  position  taken 
by  the  provincial  assembly  of  London,  which,  after  the  dissolu- 
tion of  the  Westminster  Assembly,  was  regarded  as  the  organ  of 
the  presbyterian  body,  may  be  seen  at  full  length  in  their  two 
famous  and  incomparable  treatises,  '  The  Divine  Right  of 
Church  Government,'6  and  '  The  Divine  Right  of  the  Gospel 
ministry.'7  Indeed,  the  whole  force  of  the  presbyterian  body,  i  n 
those  troublous  times,  was  employed  in  defending  their  own 
ministry,  and  that  of  the  previously  existing  hierarchy,  against 
the  charge  of  anti-christianism  and  nullity,  so  furiously  levell- 
ed against  them  by  the  consn-egationalists  of  the  Cromwell 

1)  See  Life  and  Times  of  Alex,  clesiastici,  or  the  Divine  Right,  kc. 
Henderson,  by  Dr.  Aiton.  pp.  199, 181.  asserted  and  evidenced  by  the  Holy 

2)  Ibid, pp. 546, 558,  559.  Scriptures;    I  have  the  third  edition, 

3)  Ibid,  p.  560.  London.  1654, 4to.     See  pp.  14,  27,  32, 

4)  Baxter  on  Episcop.  p.  2.  pt.  2,  102,  267.  268. 

and  Theophilus    Thernorcus   in    his  7)  Jus  Divinum  Ministerii.  Evan- 

Vind.  of  the  Cov.,  not  to  be  against  all  gelici,  or,  &c.   London,    1054.       See 

manner  of  Episcopacy.    See  quoted  in  Introd.  pp.  3.  26.  and  pt.  2.  pp.  2,  16, 17, 

The  Case  of  the  Accommodation  Ex-  19,   22,  24,    33.   38,  &c.     '  These   two 

amined,  p.  37,  and  in  Appendix,  p.  99.  works  would    be  well  worth  repub- 

5)  London,  1646,  pp.  16,  17.  lication  by  our  Board. 

6)  Jus  Divinum  Regiminiis   Ec- 

4 


26  PRESBYTERIANS    CLAIM  [BOOK   I. 

school.1  And  the  only  question  which  excited  any  serious  con- 
troversy then,  was,  not  whether  the  ministerial  succession  of  the 
prcsbylerians  had  come  down  to  them  unbroken  from  the  apos- 
tles, but  whether  it  had  not  become  altogether  polluted  and  de- 
stroyed, by  descending  through  the  foul  channels  of  the  pre- 
lacy.2 '  By  all  which  it  appeareth,'  to  use  the  words  of  Bax- 
ter, 1.  '  how  falsely  we  are  charged  to  be  against  all  episco- 
pacy. 2.  how  falsely  and  deceitfully  all  those  writers  state 
the  case,  who  ....  make  them  believe  that  our  controversy 
is,  whether  there  should  be  any  episcopacy,  and  not  what  kind 
of  episcopacy  it  should  be.'3  Not  less  pointed  are  the  words 
of  Mr.  Boyse,who  says,  'how  strange  and  unaccountable  is  it, 
then,  to  find  the  generality  of  those  who  write  on  this  subject, 
so  constantly  confounding  the  parochial  with  diocesan  epis- 
copacy, as  if  it  were  the  same  thing,  when  the  latter  is  so 
utterly  inconsistent  with  the  former,  and  so  entirely  subver- 
sive of  it ;  and  if  this  primitive  parochial  episcopacy  be  all 
that  is  contended  for,  I  think  the  dispute  about  the  divine 
right  of  it  may  be  laid  aside  '....'  since  we  could  rejoice 
in  the  restoration  of  this  ancient  parochial  or  congregational 
episcopacy.'4  '  For  parochial  episcopacy  we  do  entirely  own 
the  divine  right  of  it,'5  '  and  it  is  utterly  untrue,  that  either  the 
dissenters,  or  any  of  the  reformed  church,  either  censure  or 
want  parochial  episcopacy.'6  Milton,  in  like  manner,  styles  one 
of  his  treatises  '  Of  Prelatical  Episcopacy,'  in  which  he  shows 
that  presbyters  are  true  bishops.7  In  his  work  'Of  Reformation 
in  England,'8  he  says,  'it,'  the  presbyterian  discipline,  'is  but 
episcopacy  reduced  to  what  it  should  be;  were  it  not  that  the 
tyranny  of  prelates,  under  the  name  of  bishops,  had  made 
our  ears  tender,  and  startling,  we  might  call  every  good  min- 
ister a  bishop,  as  every  bishop,  yea,  the  apostles  themselves 
are  called  ministers,  and  the  angels  ministering  spirits,  and 
the  ministers  again  angels.'9 

It  may  therefore  be  affirmed,  that  the  reformers  and  presby- 
terian divines  generally,  both  thought  and  taught,  that  the  scrip- 
tural  episcopacy  was  presbyterian   parity  ;    and  that,  when 

1)  The  soberest  terms  then  usu-  3)  Treatise   on  Episcop.  ch.  iv. 
ally   applied    to  them,    were   'Baal's     §  SO,  SI,  pp.  43,  44. 

Priests,'      '  Anti- christian     priests,'  4)  Account  of  the  Ancient  Epis- 

'  Black  coats,  &c,  Bee  Kirmin's   Sep-  copacy,  pref.  pp.  x.  xi.  Lond.  1712, and 

aration  Examined,  p.  92,     Byfieldorj  in  Wks.  Fol.  Lond.  1728. 

the  Church  of  Christ.  Vindiciae    Vin-  5)  Ihid.p 

iciarum,   ami  the  works  above  refer-  0)  Ibid,  p 

red  to.  7)  Wks.  vol.  1,  pp.  CO,  04,  &c. 

2)  See  Div.  Righl   of  the   Minis-  S)  Wks.  vol.  1.  p.  52. 

try,  pt.  2.  pp.  29,  42,  9)  See  prose  Wks.  vol.  1,  p.  52, 


CHAP.  I.  THE    TRUE    EPISCOPACY.  27 

charged  by  the  papists  with  having  abolished  episcopacy  in 
their  churches,  their  reply  uniformly  was,  that  they  had  not 
destroyed  episcopacy,  bul  had  only  reduced  it  to  the  true, 
original,  apostolic,  and  scriptural  standard*1 

§  4.     Presbytery  is  the  true  episcopacy. 

We  presbyterians,  therefore,  have  ever  been  accustomed  to 
regard  our  system  of  ecclesiastical  polity  as  the  true  and  scrip- 
tural episcopacy  instituted  by  Christ  and  his  apostles ;  and  our 
ministry  as  embodying  the  true  apostolical  succession  in  'the 
apostle's  doctrine,  and  fellowship  and  authority.'  But  where- 
as prelatists  lodge  this  episcopate,  with  all  its  tremendous 
power,  in  one  individual,  who  lords  it  over  God's  heritage, 
our  church  constitutes  every  minister  a  bishop,  and  lodges  the 
episcopate,  as  a  system  of  government,  in  the  hands  of  eccle- 
siastical courts,  composed  of  assembled  bishops  and  elders. 
These  form  our  parochial  session  ;  our  district  presbytery  ;  our 
diocesan  synod ;  and  our  national  convention  or  general  assem- 
bly; so  that  the  power  of  one  single  prelatical  bishop  is  divid- 
ed among  some  hundred  of  our  bishops  and  ruling  elders.  As 
every  minister  of  our  church  is  authoritatively  regarded  as  a 
bishop,  these  several  courts  might  with  as  much  verbal  pro- 
priety have  been  denominated  episcopacies,  as  presbyteries, 
and  our  church  episcopal,  just  as  properly  as  presbyterian. 
Neither  did  she  ever  disclaim  the  former,  or  assume  the  latter. 
Our  church  is  comprehensively  both  episcopal  and  presbyte- 
rian, and  she  is  distinctively  neither.  She  is  episcopal,  as  she 
claims  for  all  her  ministers  the  title  of  bishop.  She  is  presby- 
terian, as  she  recognises  a  perfect  original  parity  in  the  official 
character  and  qualifications  of  her  ministers.      But  these  are 

1)   See  Div.  Right  of  the  Min.  pt.  mons  and  Speeches  of  Members  ofSy- 

2,  pp.  39-44,  49.     Edinb.  Presb.  Rev.  nod  of  Ulster,  Ireland;   Belfast,  1834, 

Ap.  1839,  p.  038.      Lord    Brooke  on  p.  09.     Dr.   Miller,   on  the    Min.  &c. 

Episcopacy,  p.  06,  &c.      These  testi-  passim.      Presb.  Defend.  Lond.  1839, 

monies  might  be  multiplied  to  any  ex-  p.  118.     Report  of  the  Edinb.  Celebra- 

tent,  were  it  necessary.      See  Neal's  tionof  the  Assembly  of  1638,  pp.  17, 18. 

Hist.  vol.  4,  p.  252.       Corbet  on  the  Dr.  Chalmers's  Speech  on  the  Auch- 

Church,  Lond.  1684,  pp.  135,  169.  Pres-  terander  Case,  p.    14,  and    Lect.   on 

byterian  Ordin.  defended  and  proved.  Relig.  Establishments,  pp.  22,  23.  See 

by  Rev.  Noah  Welles,  N.  Y.  1763,  p.  also  the  strong  language  of  Dr.  Wilson, 

71,  and  his  Vindic.  of  Presb.  Ord.  New  in  his  Prim.  Govt,  of  the   Churches,  p. 

Haven,  1707.  pp.  10,  15,  150, 157.  That  279,  et  passim.      Baxter's  Treatise  on 

it  was  claimed  by  the  early  presbyte-  Episcop.   ch.   iv.  $   80,  81,  pp.  43,  44. 

rians  in  S.  C.  see  Hewett's  Hist,  of  S.  Manual  of  Presbytery,  by  Mr.  Lori- 

C.  vol.2,  p.  252,  and  Dr.  Ramsay's  Hist,  mar,  Edinb.  1842,  pp.  259-278.    Cum- 

vol.  2,  p.  45;  see  also  An  Apology  for  ming's  Apol.  for  the  Ch.  of  Scotland, 

the  Ch.  of  Scotland,  by  Rev.  J.  Cum-  pp.  12, 17,  20,  25,  32. 
ming,   Lond.  1837,  p.  13.      Miss.  Ser- 


28  THE  APOSTLES  u  ERE  also 


BOOK  I. 


but  her  specific  characteristics,  by  which  she  is  distinguished 
from  other  blanches  of  the  church.  Generically  she  is  a 
church  of  Christ  —  a  true,  pure,  and  original  branch  of  the  one, 
holy,  catholic,  and  apostolic  church.  The  sentiment  of  every 
presbyterian,  who  understands  the  true  nature  <>t  liis  church, 
is  that  of  the  justly  celebrated  Dr.  Henry  Cooke,  of  Ireland  ; 
1  Our  church,'  says  he,  'is  presbyterian  by  distinction,  but 
episcopalian  by  principle ;  I  am  an  episcopalian,  Paul  being 
my  witness.  Humble  though  I  be,  I  hold  myself  to  be  as 
much  a  bishop  as  the  archbishop  of  Canterbury.  Our  church 
is  ordered  with  bishops,  presbyters  or  elders,  and  deacons,  and 
if  they,  (the  high-church  prelatists,)  refuse  to  concede  to  us 
the  title  of  church,  we  shall  take  it  at  the  hands  of  Paul,  and 
be  contented  with  his  certificate  of  ordination,  should  theirs 
be  niggardly  withheld.'1  '  It  is,  in  short,  the  happiness  of  our 
church  that  we  have  such  an  episcopacy,  and  we  glory  in  it'2 
That  there  has  been,  therefore,  a  perpetual  and  uninterrupt- 
ed succession  in  the  church  of  Christ,  first  of  faithful  members, 
and  secondly  of  true  and  valid  ministers,  constituting  in  every 
age,  however  scattered,  persecuted,  or  obscured,  a  holy,  cath- 
olic, and  visible  church ;  this,  as  presbyterians,  we  constantly 
affirm. 

$  5.      The  apostles  were  both  extraordinary  and  ordinary 

ministers. 

But  here  it  is  necessary  to  explain.  When  we  say  that 
presbyters  are  the  successors  of  the  apostles,  we  mean  that 
they  are  so  in  every  thing  wherein  the  apostles  can  be  suc- 
ceeded, for  in  many  things  they  cannot.  Perpetual  minis- 
tries are  one  thing,  temporary  gifts  are  another  thing.  In  the 
organization  of  any  church  or  kingdom  there  must  be  extra- 
ordinary officers  with  extraordinary  powers,  for  the  accom- 
plishment of  the  extraordinary  duties  1  hen  to  be  performed. 
Now  the  term  apostle,  as  we  have  already  shown,  is  suscep- 
tible of  a  special  and  a  general  meaning,  and  is  used  in  both 
senses  in  the  New  Testament.3  But  in  that  peculiar  sense 
in  which  it  is  given  only  to  the  twelve,  this  term  cannot  In- 
applied  to  any  order  of  ordinary  christian  ministers,  since 
the  apostle  Paid   zealously  defends  his  character  and  author- 

i)  Speech  at  Manchester, in  1839.    in  Bcripture  apostles,  thai  there  was 

2)  Dr.  .Miller  on  the  Min.  p.  404.    therefore  no  difference  between  them 

3)  See    Lect.    mi     Apost.    Sure,     and  the  twelve.      It  would    be   a   - 

Lect.  x.  '  For  no  one  has  ever  imagin-  fallacy  to  conclude  that  all  who  are 
ed,  that  because  St.  Barnabas,  Epaph-  styled  apostles  w  ere  on  a  par  with  the 
roditns,  and   many  others,  are  called     twelve.1     Saravia,  p.  220. 


CHAP.    I.]  ORDINARY    MINISTERS.  29 

ity  against  the  '  false  apostles,  deceitful  workers,  transforming 
themselves  into  the  apostles  of  Christ,'  by  affirming  that  he 
had  received  his  apostleship  '  not  from  man  but  from  God.' 
But  this,  says  Hadrian  Saravia,  '  would  have  been  an  absurd 
mode  of  reasoning,  had  the  name  apostle  been  common  to 
many  who  were  not  of  the  company  of  the  twelve,  but  had 
been  sent  of  men,  and  by  men,  and  not  immediately  by 
God.'1  On  the  other  hand  this  same  term  may,  in  a  general 
sense,  be  used  of  persons  sent  on  any  account,  or  in  any 
manner ;  -  and  may  thus  be  applied  to  all  christian  ministers, 
since  it  is  their  office  to  declare  the  truth,  and  since  they 
have  been  called  to  this  office  by  their  brethren. 

The  apostles,  then,  are  to  be  considered  in  a  double  as- 
pect.3 They  are  to  be  regarded  in  that  peculiar  character  in 
which  they  are  especially  denominated  the  Apostles,  and 
in  which  they  fulfilled  the  miraculous,  intransmissible  func- 
tions of  Christ's  representatives  and  ambassadors  ;4  and  in 
that  more  general  character  in  which  they  are  simply  apos- 
tles or  ministers  of  Christ.  We  are,  therefore,  to  ascertain 
what  belonged  to  them  personally,  and  what  was  common 
to  them  and  to  all  other  ministers  of  Christ.  We  must  dis- 
cover what  was  peculiar  to  them  —  to  their  times  —  and  to 
the  existing  circumstances  in  which  they  were  called  to  act — 
and  what  characterized  them  as  the  exemplars  or  prototypes 
of  all  other  ministers  unto  the  end  of  the  world.  That  in 
their  official  character  the  apostles  could  not  delegate  their 
authority  or  have  any  successors,  in  idem  officium,  is  gener- 
ally admitted,  and  has  been  fully  proved.5  But  that,  in  their 
general  character,  as  the  first  of  an  endless  multitude  of  her- 
alds of  the  cross,  they  have  had  successors,  is  as  firmly  to  be 
believed,  unless  we  will  altogether  subvert  the  church  of 
Christ.6 

To  assist  our  minds  in  thus  contemplating  the  apostles,  let 
the  following  observations  be  considered.  In  the  first  place 
we  are  to  remember,  that  before  ordering  the  ministry  of  his 

1)  On  the  Priesthood,  p.  90.  See  6)  '  Ido  not  deny  but  many  things 
also  Lord  Barrington's  Wk.  vol.  ii.  in    the   apostles   were   personal.   &c. 

2)  Ibid.,  p.  88.  Yet,    that  all  their  gifts    ended  with 

3)  See  Campbell's  Lect.  on  Eccl.  their  lives,  and  no  part  of  their  charge 
Hist.  Lect.  iv.  p.  66.  2d  edit.  See  and  power  remained  to  their  after-com- 
also  Dr.  Cook's  View  of  Christianity,  ers,  may  neither  be  confessed  by  us 
vol.  ii.  pp.  3,  4.  Owen's  Wks.  vol.xix.  nor  affirmed  by  any,  unless  we  mean 
p.  200.  wholly     to    subvert    the     church    of 

4)  See  a  very  fine  representation  Christ.'  1.  Bp.  Bilson.  Perp.  Govt,  of 
of  the  peculiar  character  of  the  apos-  the  Chr.  Ch.  ch.  ix.  p.  105.  See  also 
ties,  in  Gaussen  on  Inspiration,  p.  Bishop  Davenant,  on  Colossians,  vol. 
300,  &c.  i.  p.  lxii. 

5)  Lect.  on  Apost.  Succ.   Lectx. 


30  THE  APOSTLES  "WERE  ALSO         [BOOK  I. 

church  in  its  permanent  form,  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  as  a 
wise  master-builder,  had  to  lay  the  foundations  of  his  church, 
promulge  his  doctrines,  and  legislate  for  all  future  times. 
These  things  made  it  necessary  that  his  first  ministers  should 
be  chosen  by  himself;  should  have  an  unlimited  mission; 
should  in  every  thing  pertaining  to  their  office  be  directed 
by  the  Holy  Spirit  as  an  infallible  guide ;  and  should  be 
assisted  in  their  work  by  the  possession  of  miraculous  and 
supernatural  gifts.  These  powers  were  superadded  to  their 
ordinary  endowments,  and  were  adapted  to  those  extraor- 
dinary functions  which  were  temporary,  and  which,  when 
once  completed,  were  for  ever  done  away.1  In  the  second 
place  we  are  to  remember,  that  the  twelve  wTere  ministers  or 
preachers  before  they  were  apostles.  They  could  not  be 
apostles  of  the  Christian  church  before  the  death  and  resur- 
rection of  Christ,  since  it.  is  upon  these  events  the  church  is 
founded.  Till  then,  the  kingdom  of  heaven  was  proclaimed 
as  '  at  hand,'  as  coming,  and  in  a  state  of  preparation.  Till 
then,  Christ  and  his  disciples  remained  in  connection  with 
the  Jewish  church,  observing  its  ordinances,  worshipping  in 
its  assemblies,  recognising  its  divine  institution,  and  respect- 
ing all  its  laws.  And  then  only  were  the  heralds  of  the 
Christian  church  commissioned  to  go  forth  and  to  announce 
it  as  established.2  That  the  apostles  were  not  even  presby- 
ters, during  our  Lord's  ministry,  we  are  bound  to  believe,  by 
the  Tridentine  Council,  on  pain  of  being  accursed.3    The 

1)  See  a  very  clear,  scriptural,  and  Sinclair's  Vind.  of  the  Episc.  or  Apost. 
full  account  of  the  offices,  gifts,  and  Succ.  p.  16.  '  And  that  day  at  whose 
powers  granted  to  the  apostles,  and  dawn  the  church  as  yet  had  not  an 
peculiar  to  them,  by  Lord  Barrington,  existence  nor  a  name,  had  before  its 
in  Wks.  vol.  ii.  §  vi.  vii.  and  viii.  close    beheld    that    church    receive 

2)  See  Sage's  Vind.  of  the  Princ.  into  its  bosom  three  thousand  souls.' 
of  the  Cyrp.  Age,  c.  vi.  sect.  6.  Plea  Woodgate's  Bampton  Lect.  p.  100. 
for  Presb.  p.  175.  See  this  affirmed  by  See  also  Ayton's  Constit.  of  the  Ch. 
Bishop  Heber.  in  Life  of  Taylor.  See  ch.  i.  p.  13.  Hinds's  Hist,  of  the  Rise 
Wks.  vol.  i  p.  exxxv.  Jer.  Taylor,  and  Progress  of  Christianity,  vol.  i. 
Wks.  vol.  xiii.  p.  19,  et  seq.  pp.  134,  149,  153,  and  175.   Pratt's  Old 

'  Granting  every  thing,'  says  Dr.  Paths,  p.  59.  See  also  Lord  Barring- 
Bowden.Wks.  on  Episcop.  vol.i.p.  176,  ton's  Wks.  vol.  ii.  §  I,  p.  14,  &c,  where 
1  that  some  Episcopalians  have  con-  he  shows  that  the  great  truth  witness- 
tended  for,  still  it  remains  true  that  the  ed  by  the  apostles  was  the  resurrec- 
Church  of  Christ,  in  its  explicit,  per-  tion  ol  Christ,  by  a  great  abundance  of 
manent  form,  was  not  established  till  scripture  proofs.  This  point  is  also  fre- 
after  our  Lord's  resurrection.  I  am  quently  urged  by  Archbishop  Whate- 
muchof  the  mind  of  Bishop  Sage  upon  ley  on  the  Kingdom  of  Christ.  Essay 
that  point.'  See  also  Saravia  on  the  ii.  $  i.  p.  54.  Eng.  ed.  and  p.  10S. 
Priesthood.  Stillingfleel  fren.  p.  117,  3)  If  any  one  shall  'Say,  that 
IIS,  and  Par  ii.  p. 2 18.  Whitby,  Annot.  in  these  words — do  this  in  remem- 
Luke  10:  1.  Dr.  Hammond  on  ibid,  brance  of  me  —  which  were  used  by 
Bellarmine  de  Pontif.  lib.  iv.  cap.  25.  Christ  the  same  night  in  which  he 


CHAP.    I.]  ORDINARY    MINISTERS.  31 

same  thing  is  affirmed  also  by  prelatical  writers.1  But  what  is 
of  more  importance,  it  is,  we  apprehend,  expressly  declared  by 
the  apostle,  who  says  that  it  was  'when  he,  (that  is,  Christ,) 
had  ascended  on  high,  he  gave  some  to  be  apostles,  by  fully 
endowing  them  for  their  office.  Eph.  4:  11.  The  apostles, 
however,  were  previously  employed,  together  with  the  sev- 
enty, in  a  temporary  and  ordinary  ministry,  and  went  about 
the  country  of  Judea,  proclaiming  the  approaching  establish- 
ment of  the  christian  dispensation.  It  has  also  been  shown, 
by  Lord  Barrington,  in  a  very  extensive  examination  of  the 
scripture  history,  that  after  his  conversion  Paul  labored  in 
the  character  of  a  prophet  or  teacher  for  eight  or  nine  years 
before  he  was  called  to  be  an  apostle.  During  this  time  he 
was  not  recognised  by  the  brethren,  or  the  other  apostles,  as 
an  apostle,  nor  even  as  a  disciple  ;  (Acts  9:  26;)  neither  did  he 
preach  to  the  heathen,  but.  confined  his  labors  to  the  Jews, 
and  to  the  proselytes  of  the  gate.  And  it  was  only  about  the 
year  43,  that,  in  a  revelation  of  Christ,  made  to  him  in  the 
temple  at  Jerusalem,  during  his  second  visit,  he  received  his 
commission  to  go  as  an  apostle  to  the  Gentiles,  and  those 
supernatural  endowments  he  afterwards  displayed.  Then 
only  was  he  called  an  apostle.  Acts  13 :  9.  Then,  for  the 
first  time,  was  he  ordained  and  publicly  recognised  by  the 
special  appointment  of  the  Holy  Ghost.  (Acts  13  :  1,  &c.) 
and  then  only  did  he  commence  his  inspired  writings.2  This 
is  the  opinion  of  Hooker  and  of  Dr.  Hales.3  And  it  is  re- 
markable that  while  prophets  are  said  to  exhort,  evangelists 
to  preach,  and  others  to  teach,  that  the  apostles  alone  are  said 
to  witness  or  testify.4 

In  the  third  place  we  remark,  that  the  denial  of  this  dis- 
tinction, or  the  supposition,  that  without  it  the  apostles  are 
succeeded  in  their  ministry,  leads  to  many  absurdities.  If 
the  apostles,  as  they  were  superior  to,  and  distinguished 
from,  presbyters,  are  to  be  ranked  as  an  order  of  the  christian 
ministry,  having  peculiar  successors  in  the  line  of  prelates, 
then  is  the  whole  theory  of  ministerial  orders  thrown  into 
fathomless  confusion.  According  to  archbishop  Potter,  '  be- 
sides them  there  were  at  least  two  orders  of  fixed  and  stand- 
was  betrayed,  Christ  did  not  ordain  Wks.  vol.  ii.  Essay  iii.  p.  1S1  — 264, 
his  apostles  priests  —  let  him  be  ac-     194. 

cursed.'      1.    Concil.    Trid.   Sess.   22.  3)  Hooker,  Eccl.  Pol.  B.  vii.  §  4. 

cone.  2.  Hale's  Analysis  of  Chron.  vol.  ii.  pt. 

1)  See  Burnetonthe  Thirty-Nine     ii.  p.  10S3,  and  Townsend's  N.  T.  vol. 
Art.  p.  453.  Page's  ed.  Faber's  Diff.of    ii.  p.  160. 

Romanism,  B.  2,  ch.  ii.  p.  261.  4)  Acts  11 :  23,  and  15:  22;  ibid. 

2)  See  Lord  Barrington's  Theol.     8,5;    12,35;   21,  S,  18,  25;    13,1;   9, 

20,  22,29:  11,  26;  22.18. 


32  THE    APOSTLES    WERE     ALSO  [BOOK   I. 

ing  ministers,  namely,  bishops  and  presbyters,  with  another 
of  deacons.'1  We  have  thus  three  orders  besides  the  apos- 
tles, making  in  all  four,  and  that,  too,  besides  the  order  con- 
stituted by  Christ,  as  the  prototype  of  a  prelatical  hierarchy. 
But  even  this  comes  short  of  the  beautiful  gradations  of  the 
hierarchy,  as  drawn  forth  by  the  authoritative  pencil  of  the 
admired  and  skilful  Saravia.  'There  is  no  question,9  he 
tells  us,  'but  that  the  apostles  held  the  first  rank,  evangelists 
the  second,  prophets  the  third,  pastors  and  presbyters  the 
fourth,  teachers  the  last.'2  Here,  then,  are  five  standing 
orders,  besides  Christ,  and  deacons,  which  make  the  number 
seven.  Rut  then, '  pastors  and  presbj  ters,'  lie  adds. '  were  dis- 
tinguished by  the  aposlles  into  two  orders,'15  which  swells  the 
number  to  eight.  And  this  number,  on  the  same  principles 
of  interpretation,  might  easily  be  multiplied  to  as  many  more, 
so  that  the  ranks  of  the  celestial  hierarchy,  in  their  shining 
orders  of  cherubim  and  seraphim,  may  hide  their  diminished 
heads  before  the  innumerous  trains  of  ministering  spirits 
who  crowd  the  gates  of  the  earthly  sanctuary. 

In  the  fourth  place  we  remark,  thai  the  apostles  themselves 
seem  carefully  to  distinguish  between  their  authoritative 
character,  as  inspired  apostles,  and  their  ordinary  character, 
as  weak  and  fallible  ministers  of  the  word.  Paul  shall  be 
our  witness.  In  one  place  he  says,  '  I  keep  my  body  under. 
and  bring  it  inlo  subjection,  lest,  when  I  have  preached  to 
others.  J  myself  should  be  a  cast-away.'  So  that,  independ- 
ently of  the  high  privilege  which  he  had  as  an  apostle,  he  had 
to  work  out  his  own  salvation  with  fear  and  trembling,  as  a 
christian  minister.  Thus,  also,  he  says,  'in  nothing  am  1 
behind  the  very  chiefest  apostles,  though  1  be  nothing.'  It  is 
thus  that  he  always  distinguishes  between  himself  and  his 
apostleship.4  Thus,  to  lake  another  illustration.  In  his  in- 
scription to  the  Epistle  to  the  Romans,  (ch.  1  :  I.)  he  describes 
himself  as  'Paul,  a  servant  of  Jesus  Christ,  called  to  be  an 
apostle.'     Here  we  have  his  apostolical  character,  as  derived 

from  Jesus  Christ,  by  an  immediate  call,  The  apostle  adds, 
'separated    1o    ihe    gospel    of    God,'    wherein    he    refers  to    his 

being  sel  aparl  lor  the  work  o(  the  gospel  by  the  presbyters 
of  Antioch,  as  is  admitted  by  Dr.  Bloomfield,  a  staunch  pre- 
latist, '  and  as  would  appear  from  the  use  <>(  the  identical  term 
employed  in  the  accounl  of  thai  transaction. 

i )  Church  Gov.  p.  L07,  ■■•  Jordan's  (of  Oxford)   Re- 

2)  On  the  Priesthood,  pp.  57,  58.  view  of  Tradition.    Lond.  1840.   p.  78. 
See alsopp.  65,  67,  5)  See  Crit  Digest, in  loci 

3)  Ibid.  Parkhurat  in  loco,  and   Bretschneider. 


CHAP.  I.]  ORDINARY    MINISTERS.  33 

And  thus  also  in  the  epistle  to  the  Ephesians,  among 
whom  there  had  been  placed  presbyters  or  bishops,  as  fixed 
officers,  it  is  declared  that  Christ '  gave  some  to  be  apostles, 
some  to  be  prophets,  and  some  to  be  pastors  and  teachers,' 
(Eph.  4 :  11,  12.)  The  extraordinary  gifts  and  offices  neces- 
sary to  plant  the  church,  are  here  first  expressed,  and  their 
design  alleged  to  have  been  nqog  iov  xuraQTiafwi',  '  to  prepare 
the  saints,'  etc  eqyov  diaxoviac,  that  is,  '  for  the  duties  of  the  fixed 
and  permanent  church,  state,  and  ministry.'  And  that  this 
is  the  meaning  of  the  apostle,  is  evident,  from  what  he  adds, 
Fig  otxodouijv  tov  ooDfiuTog  jou  xqi(jiov,  '  iu  order  that  the  church 
of  Christ,  (his  body,)  might  be  established,  fixed,  and  settled  ;' 
[ksxqi,  &c,  that  is,  these  extraordinary  gifts  and  offices  con- 
tinued to  be  necessary  until  the  church  had  been  established 
in  this  uniform,  settled,  and  perfect  form,  under  the  ministry 
of  its  one,  only,  and  simple  order  of  '  pastors  and  teachers.' l 

'It is  to  be  observed,'  says  Ayton,2  'that  the  work  of  the 
ministry  is  here  placed  in  the  middle,  between  the  two  ends 
proposed,  perfecting  the  saints,  and  edifying  the  body  of 
Christ ;  thereby  to  point  forth,  that  it  was  a  mean,  equally 
concerned  in  both  these,  and  that  it  was  by  the  continuance 
and  faithful  discharge  thereof  they  were  to  be  promoted. 
Now,  the  work  of  the  ministry,  being  all  that  was  to  be  con- 
tinued till  the  end  of  time,  makes  it  evident,  that  the  extraor- 
dinary character  of  the  apostles,  prophets,  and  evangelists 
was  to  cease  with  themselves,  and  that  nothing  they  were 
vested  with  was  to  remain,  but  what  they  made  the  investi- 
ture of,  to  pastors  and  teachers,  which  was  the  work  of  the 
ministry.  They  having  acted  the  part  that  was  laid  upon 
them,  by  virtue  of  their  respective  missions,  and  extraordinary 
characters,  in  bringing  in  and  making  up  the  New- Testament 
state  of  the  church,  till  its  canon  was  completed,  with  a  view 
to  the  perfecting  of  the  saints,  and  edifying  the  body  of  Christ 
by  the  work  of  the  ministry,  which  they  labored  in  during 
their  lives.  All  that  was  needful,  was,  to  leave  the  churches 
planted  with  such  officers  as  were  to  continue  to  the  world's 
end ;  and  from  time  to  time  to  be  set  apart  for  the  ministerial 
work,  that  the  end  proposed  might  be  duly  accomplished. 
And  so,  pastors  and  teachers  are  the  office-bearers  immedi- 
ately joined  to  the  ministerial  work,  to  be  continued  in  the 
church ;    and  there  is  next  to  a  full  stop  between  them  and 

1)  See  Hoogeven  p.  97,  and  Dr.  Prim.  Govt,  of  the  Ch.  p.  98,  ch.  ix. 

Wilson  on  the  Primitive  Government  See  also  Bloomfield's  Crit.  Digest,  in 

of  the  Churches,  pp.277,  278.  See  also  loco, 
this  view  confirmed  in   Thorndike's  2)  Orig.  Constit.  of  the  Ch.  p.  48. 

5 


34  THE    APOSTLES    WERE    ALSO  [BOOK   I. 

evangelists,  in  the  original  copies,  at  least,  in  those  which  are 
before  me.' 

Thus  also  in  2  Cor.  11  :  23,  the  apostle,  in  justification  of 
his  character  as  compared  with  the  false  teachers,  asks,  '  are 
they  ministers  of  Christ?'  He  thus  allows  that  they  were 
reputed  ministers  of  Christ,  but  that  in  this  respect  also  he 
could  show  his  superiority.  And  how  ?  Does  he  assert  that 
while  they  were  only  ministers  he  was  an  apostle  ?  No,  but 
he  shows  that,  even  in  his  ordinary  character  as  a  minister, 
he  was  on  many  accounts  superior,  as  he  goes  on  to  enumer- 
ate. So  also  in  1  Tim.  2 :  7,  he  says,  '  whereunto  I  am  or- 
dained a  preacher  and  an  apostle,'  thus  distinguishing  be- 
tween himself,  in  his  ordinary  character  as  a  preacher,  and  in 
his  extraordinary  character  as  an  apostle.  (See  also  1  Tim. 
1:12;  2  Tim.  1 :  11. 

'It  seemed,'  says  Milton,  'so  far  from  the  apostles1  to 
think  much  of  as  if  hereby  their  dignity  were  impaired, 
that,  as  we  may  gather  by  those  epistles  of  Peter  and  John, 
which  are  likely  to  be  latest  written,  when  the  church  grew 
to  a  settling  like  those  heroic  patricians  of  Rome,  (if  we  may 
use  such  comparison,)  hastening  to  lay  down  their  dictator- 
ship, they  rejoiced  to  call  themselves  and  to  be  as  fellow- 
elders  among  their  brethren  ;  knowing  that  their  high  office 
was  but  as  the  scaffolding  of  the  church  yet  unbuilt,  and 
would  be  but  a  troublesome  disfigurement,  so  soon  as  the 
building  was  finished.  But  the  lofty  minds  of  an  age  or  two 
after,  such  was  their  small  discerning,  thought  it  a  poor  indig- 
nity, that  the  high-reared  government  of  the  church  should  so 
on  a  sudden,  as  it  seemed  to  them,  squat  into  a  presbytery.' 

A  fifth  reason  for  this  distinction,  will  be  found  in  the 
usage  of  the  early  church.  That  it  was  universally  recognised 
by  the  apostolic,  primitive,  and  early  churches,  would  appear 
from  the  acknowledged  fact,  that  while  they  claimed  a  minis- 
terial succession,  they  nevertheless  entirely  abstained  from  the 
use  of  the  title  'apostle,9  as  designative  of  any  existing  min- 
isters in  the  church.  The  strong  presumption  undoubtedly 
is,  that  this  was  done,  not  as  was  afterwards  affirmed,  when 
the  prelatic  theory  had  to  be  sustained,  through  modesty,  but 
on  the  much  better  ground,  that  they  believed  the  peculiar 
office  and  functions  of  the  apostles  to  have  ceased  with  the 
persons  of  tin'  apostles  themselves.3 

We  add,  as  a  sixth  reason  for   this  distinction,  the   testi- 

1)  Milton's  Wks.  vol.  i.  pp.  106, 107.  2)      See   Lect.   on   Apost.  Succ. 

Lect.  x.  p.  237,  &c. 


CHAP.  I.  ]  ORDINARY    MINISTERS.  35 

mony  of  our  opponents  themselves.  Bishops  Bilson  and 
Pearson,1  Honnieman,  Hale,  with  Dr.  Hammond,  and  others, 
will  be  found  unequivocally  to  distinguish  that  ordinary 
power  in  which  the  apostles  are  succeeded,  from  that  extraor- 
dinary character  in  which  they  had  no  successors.2  The3 
language  of  bishop  Andrews  is  very  strong.4  'In  the 
apostles  (that  we  may  come  nearer  yet)  we  find  three  capaci- 
ties, as  we  may  term  them;  first,  as  christians  in  general;  sec- 
ond, as  preachers,  priests,  or  ministers  more  special ;  third,  as 
those  twelve  persons,  whom  in  strict  propriety  of  speech  we 
term  the  apostles.'  And  after  showing  that  the  commission 
was  not  given  to  them  personally,  he  adds :  '  It  being  then 
neither  personal  nor  peculiar  to  them  as  apostles,  nor  again 
common  to  all  as  christians,  it  must  needs  be  committed  to 
them  as  ministers,  priests,  or  preachers ;  and  consequently  to 
these  that  in  that  office  and  function  do  succeed  them,  to 
whom  this  commission  is  still  continued.  Neither  are  they 
that  are  ordained  or  instituted  to  that  callinsf,  ordained  or 
instituted  by  any  other  words  or  verse  than  this,  John  20 :  23.' 

The  apostles,  therefore,  are  to  be  considered  as  both  extra- 
ordinary and  ordinary,  both  as  apostles  and  as  ministers  of 
Christ.  As  apostles  they  were  never  ordained,  but  called  by 
the  immediate  voice  of  Christ,5  while,  as  a  minister,  Paul,  at 
least,  was  certainly  set  apart  by  the  imposition  of  the  hands 
of  his  brethren.  As  apostles  too  they  could  not  delegate  their 
office  or  its  power.6  Neither  could  they  appoint  a  successor 
to  themselves,  as  apostles,  and  therefore  Matthias  and  Paul 
were  both  consecrated  to  their  office  by  an  express  revelation 
from  heaven,  and  in  fulfilment  of  prophecy.7  Nor  will  the 
extraordinary  authority  exercised  by  the  apostles  over  other 

1)  On  the  Creed,  Art.  i,  p.  10.  5)     Potter  on   Ch.  Govt.   p.  264. 

2)  Bilson  on  Govt,  of  the  Ch.  ch.  Beveridge's  Works,  vol.  ii.  pp.  112, 
ix.p.  105.  Honnieman's  Survey  of  Naph-  115.  Selden  thinks  Paul  was  ordained 
tali,  Part  ii.  pp.  191,  195,  196.  Hall's  a  scribe  in  the  synagogue,  and  that  he 
Episc.  by  Divine  Right,  Part  ii.  §  3,  bore  the  same  rank  and  character 
and  Henderson's  Review  and  Consid-  when  a  christian.  Rev.  G.  Townsend 
eration,  p.  286.  See  also  Hinds's  Rise  in  Lord  Barrington's  Works,  vol.  ii.  p. 
and  Progress  of  Christ,  vol.  i.  p.  149.  159,  Note. 

Jeremy  Taylor  is  very  strong  ;  'in  the  6)  See  Dr.  Wilson,  Primit.  Govt 
extraordinary  privileges  of  the  apos-  of  the  Ch.  p.  11.  See  also  Whitaker 
ties,  they  had  no  successors;  there-  on,  in  Henderson's  Review  and  Con- 
fore,  of  necessity,  a  successor  must  be  sidn,  pp.  306,  307. 
constituted  in  the  ordinary  office  of  7)  It  may,  however,  be  doubted 
the  apostolate.'  Episc.  asserted  in  whether  Matthias  was  really  consti- 
Works,  vol.  vii.  tuted  an  apostle  of  his  election,  it  has 

3)  See  2  Tim.  4  :  9,  and  5  :  13, 21 ;  been  said.  Now  that  was  an  official 
Titus  3:  12,  and  Henderson's  Review  act,  or  it  was  not.  If  official,  it  was 
and  Considn.  Edinb.  1706,  pp.  216.219.  premature.     The  apostles  were  com- 

4)  Serm.  on  Absol'n  Fol.  p.  59-  manded  to  wait  till  they  received  the 
Lond.  1635.  promise  of  the  Father — till  they  were 


36  THE    APOSTLES  [BOOK  I. 

ministers,  afford  any  sanction  whatever,  to  the  idea  of  prelat- 
ists,  that  such  authority  was  to  remain  permanently  in  a  suc- 
cession of  persons  constituting  an  apostolic  order;1  and  we 
are  hence  to  conclude,  that  it  was  only  in  their  ordinary  min- 
isterial character  the  apostles  either  could  be,  or  are,  in  fact, 
succeeded.2  '  Successors  in  the  apostolic  office,  the  apostles 
have  none.  As  ivitnesses  of  the  resurrection ;  as  dispensers  of 
miraculous  gifts;  as  inspired  oracles  of  divine  revelation; 
they  have  no  successors.  But  as  members,  as  ministers, 
as  governors,  of  christian  communities,  their  successors  are 
the  regularly  admitted  members,  the  lawfully  ordained  min- 
isters, the  regular  and  recognised  governors  of  a  regularly  sub- 
sisting christian  church  ;' —  so  speaks  archbishop  Whateley.3 

§  7.     As  ordinary  ministers,  the  apostles  were  presbyters,  and 
are  succeeded  by  presbyters. 

In  their  ordinary  office  or  character,  the  apostles  were 
bishops,  pastors,  or  presbyters ;  in  short,  ministers  or  preachers 
of  the  gospel.  This  ordinary  office  was  included  in  their 
apostleship,  which  consisted  in  all  those  superadded  powers 
and  qualifications,  which  fitted  them  to  establish  and  organize 
the  christian  church.  These  names  signify  the  same  office, 
considered  in  different  aspects.  The  term  smatumos  or  bishop, 
is,  in  the  Greek  language,  equivalent  to  overseer  or  superin- 
tendent, and  refers  to  the  office  or  duty  of  the  minister.  It  is 
perfectly  synonymous  with  the  term  pastor  or  shepherd,  so 
commonly  employed  in  the  Old  Testament,  to  denote  the 
prophets  and  doctors,  and  translated  by  the  term  bishop  in 
tlit-  Septuagint  version.  Episcopus  was  the  common  and 
known  title  of  the  public  minister  of  the  synagogue,  called 
also  '  the  angel  of  the  church  ; '  '  the  ohazan  or  bishop  of  the 

endued   with    power  from   on    high,  was  the  case  with  Paul,  bu1  not  with 
Till  thus  enriched  and  endowed,  they  Matthias.     Nor  is  it  a  little  remarka- 
were  not  competent  to  enter  on  any  ble,  that  the  latter  is  never  once  intro- 
department  of  their  work;    and  con-  duced  in  any  way.  either  in  the  evan- 
sequently,  not  authorized  to  enter  on  gelical  history,  or  in  the  epistles,  from 
any  such  proceeding  as  the  election  the  day  of  his  election  to  the  extinc- 
of   a   fellow    apostle.      But   if  it  be  tiott  01  the  whole  college  of  apostles.' 
admitted  that  it  was  not  an  official  Puseyism,  or  the  Errors  of  the  Times, 
act,   th>-    whole   transaction   goes  for  by  Rev.  Robert  Ferguson.  Loud.    See 
nothing.      Besides,  was  not  this  elec-  also   Hamilton's    Essay  on   Missions, 
tion  wholly  set  aside  by   Christ  him-  p.   Ill,  ami    full    on     in    Duffield,   on 
self,  when  he  chose  Paul  to  bear  his  Episcopacy,  Letter  vii, 
name  far  hence  to  the  Gentiles  ?  Never  1)     See  the  reasoning  in  Bloom- 
did   he  commit    to  them   such   power,  field's  (ir.  Test,  on  Matt.  16:  1'.'. 
It  was  indispensable  to  the  very  exist-  •_')     See  Corbet  on  the  Ch.  p 
ence  as  well    as  possession  of   the  3)     Archbishop  Whateley's  King- 
office,  that  the  commission  should  be  dom  of  Christ,  Essay  ii.  p.    13, 
held  immediately  from  Christ.      This 


CHAP.  1.1  WERE    PRESBYTERS. 


37 


congregation,'  who  presided  in  their  assemblies,  and  care- 
fully corrected  those  who  read  the  word  of  God,  whence  he 
was  denominated  episcopus,  or  overseer.1  The  word  pres- 
byter, in  Greek,  is  the  same  as  senior,  or  natu  major,  in  Latin, 
and  elder,  in  English,  and  refers  to  the  qualifications  and 
dignity  of  the  office.2  The  term  presbyter  denotes,  there- 
fore, the  authority  and  high  dignity  of  the  ministry,  and  the 
term  bishop,  the  functions  growing  out  of  it;  while  both 
were  familiar  to  the  Jews,  as  indifferently  applicable  to  the 
same  office,  both  in  the  Septuagint  and  in  the  synagogue.3 
Even  as  late  as  the  time  of  Clement,  the  term  bishop  is  always 
the  same  with  presbyter,  or  elder,  as  every  one  may  see  who 
will  read  his  epistle.4  The  propriety  of  these  two  names  of 
designation  for  the  same  office,  will  appear,  if  we  consider 
that  the  one  is  of  Jewish  and  the  other  of  Greek  original,  and 
that  the  early  churches  were  composed  of  converts  both  from 
among  the  Jews  and  the  Greeks. 

Now,  we  find  the  apostles,  in  their  ordinary  character, 
identified  with  both  these  terms.  '  Even  the  dignity  of  the 
apostleship,'  says  Mr.  Sinclair,  'is  occasionally  termed  an 
episcopal  office.'  Acts,  1 :  20. 5  But  the  term  bishop  is, 
undoubtedly,  a  denomination  given  by  the  Holy  Spirit  to 
presbyters,  (Acts,  20:  28,)  and  since  it  is  employed  to  denote 
the  apostleship  in  its  general  or  ministerial  character,6  the 
office  of  the  apostleship,  and  of  the  presbyterate,  are  properly 
denominated  by  the  same  terms,  and  imply  the  same  minis- 
terial character  and  work.  In  fact,  in  this  and  other  passages, 
the  apostleship  is,  in  this  general  view  of  it,  called  a  ministry.7 
Christ,  therefore,  enjoined  his  apostles,  to  '  feed  his  sheep.' 

1 )  Lightfoot,  Wks.  vol.  ii.  p.  88,  and  to  all  who  were  at  first  employed 
and  vol.  iii.  p.  257.  On  the  use  of  the  in  this  work,  however  variously  dis- 
term  hishop,  see  Burnet's  obs.  on  the  tinguished,  Hadrian  Saravia  constant- 
lst  Canon,  pp.  3,  4;  see  also  Binii  ly  affirms.  On  p.  93,  he  applies  it  to 
Concil,  Tom.  6,  241,  col.  i.  apostles,    evangelists,   and    prophets. 

2)  Officers  under  this  name  had  So  again  p.  107. 

existed  among  the  Jews  even  during  5)     The   passage  is  a  quotation 

their  captivity  in  Egypt*  Others  were  from  the  Old  Testament,  (Ps.  69:  25, 

appointed  in  the  wilderness.t  and  Is.  60 :  17,)  in  which  it  is  foretold, 

3)  See  Dr.  Mason's  Wks.  vol.  iii.  according  to  the  Greek  version,  that 
p.  47;  and  Sinclair's  Vind.of  the  Apost.  the  ordinary  ministers  of  the  gospel- 
Succ.  p.  15;  Lond.  1839:  and  Dr.  church  should  be  called  bishops.  I 
Rice's  Evang.  Mag.  vol.  x.  p.  571  ;  will  also  make  thy  officers  [eirinnrov;) 
and  Saravia,  as  above.  peace.'     This   passage  we    shall  find 

4)  Lord  Barrington's  Theol.  quoted  by  Clement,  in  support  of  this 
Wks.  vol.  ii.  p.  158.     That  the  term  opinion. 

presbyter  is  generic,  and  is  applicable  6)     Ibid. 

to  the  christian  ministry  in  general,  7)     Acts  1:  25.     See  also  1  Cor. 

4:  1;    2  Cor.  3 :  6,  and  11:  23;    Lph. 

*Exod.  3: 11,  16,  and 5:  18.  3-   6    7-    Col.   1:   23,25.     See    Lord 

tExod.  18:  13,  27,   and  Lord  Barring-  R;irri'      ton's   Wks    vol   ii     p.  17. 

ton's  Essay  on  the  Elders,  Wks.  vol.  ii.  part  Harrington  s    wks.  v  oi.  n.  p. 

ii.  p.  140,  &c. 


38  THE    APOSTLES  [BOOK  I. 

He  instructed  them  that  there  was  to  be  among  them  no 
Rabbi,  but  that  all  ministers  are  brethren :  Matthew,  23 :  8. 
The  apostles  desire  us  '  so  to  account  of  them,'  not  as  mas- 
ters of  the  church,  or  fathers  in  God,  but  '  as  the  ministers  of 
Christ,  and  stewards  of  the  mysteries  of  God,'  whose  busi- 
ness it  is  to  dispense  the  gospel.  1  Cor.  4:1.  '  Who  then,' 
asks  Paul,  '  is  Paul,  and  who  is  Apollos,  but  ministers  of 
Christ,  by  whom  ye  believed,  even  as  the  Lord  gave  to  every 
man  ? '  1  Cor.  3 :  o,  &c.  Peter  and  Paul  call  themselves 
fellow-elders,  fellow-servants,  and  fellow-soldiers  with  other 
ministers  of  Christ.  Thus  Epaphras,  the  Colossian  presbyter, 
is  called  by  Paul,  his  fellow-servant,  (Col.  1 :  7,)  and  so,  also, 
are  Tychichus,  (1  Peter,  5:  1,)  and  Epaphroditus,  and  Cle- 
ment, (Phil.  2:  25,  and  4:  3,)  and  this  too  at  a  time  when  it 
is  admitted  prelates  were  not  established  in  these  churches.1 
Paul  also  addresses  Marcus,  Aristarchus,  Demas,  and  Lucas, 
as  his  fellow-laborers.  (Philem.  24.)  The  original  word 
here,  may  be  rendered  fellow-officers,  (crvrepjw,  from  egyov1 
which  signifies  an  office,  Acts,  13:4,  1  Tim.  3 : 1,)  or  persons 
sustaining  the  same  office.  And  this  word  is  here  applied 
to  these  particular  persons,  in  their  distinctive  character,  and 
therefore,  in  that  appropriate  sense  in  which  it  designates  the 
ministerial  office:  (see  2  Cor.  8:  23;  Col.  4:  11.)  It  is 
allowed,  even  by  Mr.  Perceval,  that  the  apostles  '  are  frequently 
styled  presbyters.'2  This  they  called  themselves,  says  Mr. 
Benson,  '  accounting  it  an  honor  and  a  dignity  even  to  them,' 
and  'glorying  in  it.'3  The  term  apostle,  therefore,  as  applied 
to  denote  the  standing  office  of  the  ministry,  is  used  inter- 
changeably with  the  terms  presbyter  and  bishop,  and  means 
the  same  thing:  at  least,  if  the  apostle  Peter  may  be  allowed 
to  decide  this  question ;  for  he  says  expressly,  (1  Peter,  5 :  1,) 
'  the  presbyters  who  are  among  you  I  exhort,  who  am  also  a 
presbyter ;"  or  if  the  apostle  John  is  competent  to  judge  upon 
the  scriptural  meaning  and  design  of  the  terms  and  of  the  office, 
since  ho  designates  himself  a  presbyter,  in  both  his  epistles; 
(2  John,  1,  and  3  John,  1,)  or  if  the  apostle  Paul  is  any 
authority,  who  calls  himself,  '  Paul  the  aged,'  that  is,  nqeofivTris, 
the  very  word  and  meaning  from  which  is  derived  the  term 
txqe(j{Ivt(qo;.     (Philem.  9.) 

The  apostles,  when  they  had  once  settled  any  church,  and 

1)  See  Potter  on  Ch.  Govt.  p.  3)  Benson  on  the  Relig. Worship 
110.  of  the  Christians,  eh.  iii.  $  2,  p.  84. 

2)  On  the  Apost.  Succ.  p.  19.  4)  See  Nolan's  Catholic  Char. of 
See  also  Potter  on  Ch.  Govt.  p.  107;  Christ'y, p.  124,  who  says  this  passage 
and  Dr.  Bowden,  in  Wks.  on  Episcop.  is  'heterodox  to  our  episcopalian 
vol.  ii.  p.  147.  ears.' 


CHAP.  I.]  WERE    PRESBYTERS.  39 

remained  in  it  for  any  time,  governed  it  in  union  with  the 
pastors  or  presbyters,  and  acted  conjointly  with  them  as  fel- 
low-elders, that  is,  as  primi  inter  pares.1  They  disavowed  all 
lordship  over  them.  They  claimed,  personally,  no  right  of 
interference  or  control;  no  power  of  a  negative  or  veto  upon 
their  decisions.  Such  authority  was  exercised  by  them  only 
under  the  guidance  of  inspiration,  and  so  far  as  it  was  called 
for  in  the  discharge  of  their  extraordinary  office.  Thus  do 
we  find  the  apostles  acting  as  presbyters  in  the  church  of 
Jerusalem.  (Acts  10:  44,47;  Acts  15:  6,  22,  and  21,  17, 
18 ;  also  chap.  6.)  For  those  officers,  of  whom  there  might 
be  more  than  one  in  one  single  church,  were  not,  prelatists 
themselves  being  judges,  prelates.  But  the  apostles  did  many  of 
them  continue  to  labor  together  as  one  body  in  this  church,  as 
they  did  also  elsewhere,  and  therefore  the  apostles,  apart  from 
their  extraordinary  office,  were  not  prelates,  but  presbyters. 
And  as  this  was  the  first  christian  church,  constituted  by  our 
Lord  himself,  it  certainly  affords  the  best  model  for  all  others, 
and  the  surest  proof  of  the  true  character  of  the  designed  min- 
istry of  the  church.2  Thus,  also,  as  archbishop  Wake 
testifies,  in  the  thirteenth  chapter  of  Acts,  the  apostles  Paul 
and  Barnabas  are  numbered  among  the  prophets  and  teach- 
ers of  the  christian  church  at  Antioch.  Here  we  find  them, 
both  by  teaching  and  administering  the  blessed  sacrament, 
discharging  the  work  of  a  priest  or  presbyter,  as  we  now 
understand  that  word.' 3  And  hence  the  term  pastor  is  equally 
applicable  to  apostles  and  to  presbyters.4  (Acts,  ch.  15  and  21.) 
The  apostles  were,  therefore,  as  Mr.  Thorndike  admits,  no  other 
than  heads  of  presbyteries.5  Thus,  also,  as  bishop  Stillingfleet 
thinks,  the  term  angel,  in  the  epistles  to  the  seven  churches,  is  to 
be  understood, 'of  the  concessus,  or  order  of  presbyters  in  that 
church.'6  And  thus,  also,  the  ministers  spoken  of  in  the  Epis- 
tle to  the  Hebrews,  and  who,  as  there  were  several  of  them 
in  each  church,  were  presbyters,  are  called  rulers,  (13  :  17,) 
and  as  such  are  to  be  obeyed.  These  words  are  actu- 
ally translated  by  Chillingworth,  '  obey  your  prelates,'  7 
where  presbyters  are  unquestionably  identified  as  the  ac- 
knowledged   successors  of  the   apostles.     '  The  presbyters,' 

1)  Benson  on  Relig.  Worship  of  3)  Apostol.  Fathers,   Prel.  Disc, 
the   Christians,  ch.  iii.     See    Church-  to  Ep.  of  Barnabas,  §  5,  p.  271. 
man's  Monthly  Review,  June,  1841,  p.            4)  Bishop    Blomfield's    Lect.   on 
313.     See  this  point  fully  established  the  Acts.   Lond.  1629,  p.  110. 

in   Bastwick's  Utter  Routing  of  the  5)  Thorndike  on  Prim.  Govt,  of 

whole  Army  of  the  Independents  and  the  Ch.  pp.  43,  44. 
Sectaries,  Lond.  1646,  4to.  p.  426,  &c.  6)  Irenicum,  p.  336. 

2)  See  Peirce's  Del*,  of  Presb.  Ord.  7)  Wks.  vol.  i.  p.  369. 
Lond.  1717,  p.  10. 


40  THE    APOSTLES  [BOOK   !. 

as  archbishop  Potter  allows,  '  are  all  along  mentioned  as  co- 
partners with  James  in  the  care  of  the  church  of  Jerusalem.3 ' 
The  church  of  Christ  is  also  expressly  declared  to  rest  on  the 
apostles  first,  and  then  on  the  presbyters  as  their  successors, 
thus  making  presbyters  (as  the  prophets  are  admitted  to  have 
been)  'the  fellows  and  copartners  of  the  apostles  in  the  foun- 
dation of  the  christian  church.' 2  The  presbyters  of  the 
church  of  Jerusalem,  acted  for  and  presided  in  the  absence  of 
the  apostles  ; 3  and  in  the  synodical  letter  sent  to  the  churches 
by  the  council  at  Jerusalem,  presbyters  are  named  next  to  the 
apostles,  and  are  therefore  of  the  next  rank  to  them.4  The 
controversy  submitted  to  the  decision  of  that  council,  was 
referred  expressly  to  '  the  apostles  and  presbyters,' 5  because, 
as  a  very  competent  judge  decides,  '  they  used  to  preside  in 
the  absence  of  the  apostles.'6  The  presbyters  of  all  the 
christian  churches,  scattered  throughout  Pontus,  Galatia,  Cap- 
padocia,  Asia,  and  Bithynia,  '  are  said  to  have  the  oversight 
of  these  churches,  ( enioxoneiv,)  that  is,  they  were  bishops  of 
those  churches,  and  are  spoken  of  as  governors.' 7 

In  fine,  it  is  sufficient  to  corroborate  fully  our  conclusion, 
that,  in  their  ordinary  character,  the  apostles  were  identified 
with  presbyters,  and  known  and  spoken  of  familiarly  as  such, 
to  adduce  the  testimony  of  the  earliest  age.  Thus  Clemens 
Romanus  tells  us,  that  the  apostles  knew  'that  there  should 
contentions  arise  upon  account  of  the  name  of  episcopacy, 
and  therefore,  having  perfect  foreknowledge  of  this,  they 
appointed  persons,  as  we  have  before  said,  and  then  gave 
direction  how,  when  they  should  die,  other,  chosen  and  ap- 
proved men,  should  succeed  to  their  ministry.' 8 

A  similar  testimony  is  preserved  in  a  fragment  of  Papias, 
bishop  of  Hierapolis,  A.  D.  116,  the  hearer  of  John  and  the 
companion  of  Polycarp.  '  I  shall  not  think  it  grievous,'  he 
says,  'to  set  down  in  writing,  with  my  interpretations,  the  things 
which  I  have  learned  of  the  presbyters.  If  I  met  any  where 
with  any  one  who  had  conversed  with  the  presbyters,  I 
inquired  after  the  sayings  of  the  presbyters,  what  Andrew, 
what  Peter,  what  Philip,  what  Thomas,  what  James  had  said ; 

1)  On  Ch.  Govt.  p.  102.  again  p.  100.      Bishop    Pearson  also 

2)  Potter,  ibid,  pp.  103,  92,  101,  distinctly  affirms,  that  theirsuccessors 
102.     See  also  pp.  105,  10G.  '  succeeded  the  apostles  in  their  ordi- 

3)  Gal.  2:10.     Rom.  15  :  25,  31.  nary  functions,  but  were  not  to  come 

4)  Acts,  15:  23,  and  Lord  Barring-  near    them    in    their    extraordinary 
ton's  Wks.  vol.  ii.  p.  143.  gifts.'* 

5)  Acts,  15:  2.  S)  1st  Ep.  ad  Cor.  §  44 

6)  Ibid,  pp.  175  and  170. 

7)  Potter  on  Ch.  Govt.  p.  105  and  *  °n  lhe  Creed>  Anh^  ,6 


CHAP.  I.]  WERE    PRESBYTERS.  41 

what  John  or  Matthew,  or  any  other  disciple  of  the  Lord  were 
wont  to  say,  and  what  Ariston,  or  John  the  presbyter,  said.'1 
It  is  also  admitted,  by  Dr.  Hammond,  that  the  word  presbyter 
is  used  for  bishop,  and  interchangeably  with  it  by  Polycarp, 
Papias,  Irenseus,  Tertullian,  and  Clemens  Alexandrinus.2 
Neither  can  any  other  rational  account  be  given  of  the  prac- 
tice of  the  ancients  in  speaking  of  the  apostles  as  bishops, 
Peter  having  been,  as  they  say,  bishop  of  Antioch  and  of 
Rome,  James  of  Jerusalem,  and*  so  of  the  other  extraordinary 
coadjutors  of  the  apostles,  Mark,  Timothy,  and  Titus.  These 
were  accustomed  to  act  as  presidents  of  the  christian  congre- 
gations during  their  visits  to  them,  this  office  being  at  other 
times  tilled  by  one  of  the  stated  bishops  or  presbyters.  And 
as,  in  the  second  century,  the  name  bishop  came  to  signify 
this  president,  byway  of  distinction  from  the  others,  the  apos- 
tles were  then  familiarly  spoken  of  in  the  same  way.  Hence, 
were  the  names  of  those  wTho  presided  in  the  churches,  and 
acted  as  their  moderators,  recorded  as  the  successors  of  the 
apostles  in  their  ordinary  ministerial  character.3 

The  apostles,  therefore,  as  ordinary  officers,  and  the  proto- 
types of  the  permanent  ministers  of  the  church,  being  thus 
identified  with  presbyters,  in  their  ecclesiastical  functions,  we 
are  led  to  conclude,  that,  when  they  ordained  others  to  suc- 
ceed them  in  the  work  of  the  ministry,  it  was,  of  course,  in 
those  ordinary  functions,  and  not  in  their  extraordinary 
endowments  or  authority.  It  is  true,  many  of  these  pres- 
byters and  evangelists,  received  from  the  hands  of  the  apos- 
tles some  special  gifts  and  powers,  but  these  gifts  were  deter- 
mined at  their  decease.  They  were  personal,  and  not 
transferable  —  individual,  and  not  hereditary  —  additional  to 
their  official  character,  and  not  intrinsically  a  part  of  it.  Let 
any  who  may  deny  these  premises,  on  their  own  behalf,  show 
us  the  signs  of  an  apostle.1 

Now  if  we  separate  from  the  apostolic  character  what  was 
extraordinary  and  special,  we  must  take  away  the  gift  of 
tongues  —  the  gift  of  inspiration  —  the  authority  to  decide  all 
controversies  by  the  spirit  of  wisdom  that  was  in  them  —  and 
the  right  to  exercise  their  office  equally  in  all  churches,  over 

1)  See  cited  in  Eusebius's  Eccl.  ers,  Prel.  Disc,  to  the  Ep.  of  Barnabas, 

Hist.  lib.  iii    cap.  39.     Thus  also  we  §23,  p.  281.    English  edition, 
find,  that  while  certain  writings  were  2)  Dissert.  3,  c.  22,  in  Baxter  on 

by  many  fathers  recognised  as  those  Episc.  p.  99. 

of  aposties,  they  were  not  received  in-  3)  Benson's  Essay  on  the  Relig. 

to  the  canonical   Scriptures,  because  Worship  of  the  Christ,  chap.  iii.  §  6. 
not  regarded  as  dictated  by  inspiration.  4)     See  Lectures  on  Apost.  Succ. 

See  archbishop  Wake's   Apost.  Fath-  Lect.  x. 

6 


42 


PRESBYTERS    ARE    THE     ONLY 


[book  I. 


all  ministers,  and  in  all  parts  of  the  world.  But  what  func- 
tions are  left  to  characterise  the  apostles,  as  ordinary  ministers, 
when  these  are  withdrawn?  We  answer,  the  offices  of 
teaching  and  governing.  In  these  offices,  there  is  implied  the 
oversight  of  all  the  flock  —  preaching  to  them — baptizing  all 
that  are  to  be  baptized  —  the  administration  of  the  Lord's 
supper  to  all  who  are  meet  partakers  —  blessing  the  congrega- 
tion —  public  and  private  admonition  —  excommunication  of 
the  obdurate  —  and  the  restoration  of  the  penitent  to  the 
privileges  of  the  church.1  These,  then,  are  the  functions  by 
which  the  apostles  were  characterized  as  ordinary  ministers. 
It  follows,  therefore,  as  a  clear  inference,  that  to  whom- 
soever Christ  has  authorized  the  commitment  of  his  keys  in 
the  office  of  teaching  and  ruling  —  they  are  the  successors  of 
the  apostles,  in  whatever  character  those  heavenly  teachers 
could  be  succeeded.  And  our  object  will  be  to  show  that 
these  powers  are  vested  by  scripture,  in  presbyters,  who  are 
therefore  the  successors  of  the  apostles.2 


1)  And  Saravia  shows  that  these 
all  belong  to  pastors  or  presbyters,  as 
much  as  to  the  apostles,  in  their  ordi- 
nary or  general  character.  On  the 
Priesthood,  p.  113.  Thismuch  Hook- 
er himself  acknowledges.*  '  In  some 
things  every  presbyter,  in  some 
things  only  bishops,  in  some  things 
neither  the  one  nor  the  other  are 
the  apostle's  successors.' 

And  againt  he  admits,  that,  under 
the  apostolic  regimen  and  ministry, 
the  government  of  the  churches 
was  committed  to  presbyters.  '  That 
where  colleges  of  presbyters  were, 
there  was  at  the  first  equality  amongst 
them,  St.  Jerome  thinketh  it  a  matter 
clear;  but  when  the  rest  were  thus 
equal,  so  that  no  one  of  them  could 
command  any  other  as  inferior  unto 
him,  they  all  were  controllable  by  the 
apostles,  who  had  that  episcopal  au- 
thority abiding  at  the  first  in  them- 
selves, which  they  afterwards  derived 
unto  others.'  '  The  whole  power  of 
the  ministry  was  lodged  |  with  the 
apostles;  this  plenitude  of  clerical 
power  was  communicated  to  the  bish- 
ops, or  presbyters.  This  plenitude 
of  power  made  the  bishops,  or  pres- 
byters, equal  with  the  apostles  in 
their  ordinary  permanent  authority.' 

*  Eccl.  Pol.  B.  vii.  S4.  vol.  iii,  p,  187. 

Keble's  edit. 

tB.  vii.  §5,  p.  190,  do. 

t  Wks.  on  Episcop.  vol.  ii.  p.  131. 


2)  In  confirmation  of  these  views 
we  adduce  the  language  of  Dr.  Rice. 
'  Now  it  admits  of  a  question,  whether 
the  apostle-presbyters,  were  a  different 
order  from  the  bishop-presbyters.  It 
is  our  opinion,  that  they  were  not. 
We  do  not  find  any  thing  in  the  use 
of  the  words,  or  in  the  claims  of  the 
apostles,  to  warrant  the  contrary  opin- 
ion. We  have  before  remarked,  that 
apostle  signifies  messenger.  This  term 
was  applied  to  the  inspired  teachers, 
because  they  were  sent  out  immedi- 
ately by  Jesus  Christ,  to  perform  a 
particular  service,  and  furnished  with 
particular  powers,  of  an  extraordinary 
character.  In  this  respect,  they  dif- 
fered from  all  other  presbyters.  Still, 
however,  they  held  the  same  rank  with 
other  teachers  of  Christianity.  Our 
views  of  this  subject  may  be  illustrated. 
It  was  once  proposed,  at  an  extraordina- 
ry period  in  the  history  of  ourcountry, 
to  make  general  Washington  dictator. 
Let  us  suppose,  that,  on  the  organiza- 
tion of  the  government  of  the  United 
States, that  suggestion  had  been  adopted. 
He  would  have  then  been  president 
with  all  the  powers  conferred  by  the 
constitution,  and  dictator  with  the 
extraordinary  powers  conferred  for  a 
special  object  by  the  sovereign  people. 
When  this  object  is  accomplished, 
these  powers  cease.  No  similar  pow- 
ers are  conferred  on  any  of  his  suc- 
cessors.    They  are  elected  under  the 


CHAP  1.1        SUCCESSORS  OF  THE  APOSTLES.  43 

§  8.     The  succession  of  presbyters  is  the  only  ministerial 
succession  that  can  be  certainly  proved. 

But  before  proceeding  to  a  more  careful  inquiry  into  this 
subject,  there  is  one  argument  by  which  the  vast  superiority 
of  the  claim  of  presbyters,  to  this  apostolical  succession,  may 
be  triumphantly  shown,  and  which  may  form  a  suitable  con- 
clusion to  the  present  branch  of  our  investigation. 

That  we  have  a  ministerial  succession  from  the  apostles 
cannot  possibly  be  questioned.  It  is  not  denied  by  any,  that 
there  ever  has  been,  since  that  time,  a  church  on  earth,  in 
which  our  progenitors  were  found  enrolled,  and  that  in  this 
church  there  was  a  constant  ministry.  The  whole  question, 
therefore,  reduces  itself  to  this.  Supposing  such  a  ministe- 
rial succession  to  have  existed  regularly  until  the  period  of 
the  reformation,  can  it,  or  can  it  not,  be  continued  by  presby- 
ters without  the  concurrence  of  prelates  ?  That  our  succes- 
sion, down  to  the  period  of  the  reformation,  is  as  good  as 
that  of  the  prelates,  they  must  admit,  because  we  may  iden- 
tify it  with  their  own ;  and  that  it  is  better,  we  contend, 
because  we  may  trace  it  up  through  the  purer  channels  of 
the  Waldenses  and  the  Culdees,  and  thus  claim  a  succession, 
not  only  in  the  ministry,  but,  what  is  of  infinitely  more  im- 
portance, in  the  doctrine,  of  the  apostles.  But  it  will  be  said, 
that  our  succession,  since  the  reformation,  being  merely  in 

constitution,  and    exercise   only  the  These  were  unnecessary ;  because  the 
authority  with  which,  by  that  sacred  whole  work  of  revelation   was  corn- 
instrument,  they  are  invested.     Now,  pleted ;    and   the  great   office   of   the 
the  question  is,  did  president  Washing-  religious  teachers  was,  to  assist  their 
ton,  in  the  case  supposed,  hold  a  higher  fellow-men  in  understanding  that  sys- 
rank  than  presidents  Jefferson,  Adams,  tern  of  religion,  which  had  been  given 
Madison,   &c.  1      We   say,  no.      And  by  the  God  of  mercy  to  all* 
just  so  we  think  it  was  in  the  church  '  The  apostles  had  the  general  su- 
of  Christ.     The  apostle-presbyters  such  perintendence  of  all  the  churches,  and 
as  Peter,  Paul,  John,  and  others,  were  were    co-presbyters  in     each   particu- 
of  the  same  rank  or  order  with  other  lar   church.'      Gieseler's    Text   B.  of 
presbyters  ;  but  were  sent  with  extra-  Eccl.  Hist.  vol.  i.  p.  59. 
ordinary  powers,  on  an  extraordinary  Apostoli    vere  erant   presbyteri ; 
occasion.     The   decisive  evidence  of  atque  ita   seipsos  vocant.      Nulli  ta- 
their  possessing  these    powers,   was  men    loco,  ascripta    eorum    functio. 
their  immediate  mission  by  the  sover-  Evangelistae  quoque  presbyteri  erant, 
eign  of  the  church,  with  gifts  to  qual-  sed  nulli  loco  colligate.     Grotius  de 
ify  them  fully  for  their  extraordinary  Imper.  p.  271.     Baxter  in  his  Disput. 
work.     No  man  could  sustain  a  claim  on  Ch.  Govt. p.  21,  &c,  offers  manyrea- 
to  such  a  mission,  unless  he  was  able  sons  for  the  opinion,  that  the  apostles 
to  show  that  Christ  had  furnished  him  are  succeeded  in  their  general  office, 
for  the  work.     Here  is  the  sufficient  . 
limitation   and   guard.      The    bishop-           *^  S^i^lS^S^ofZ 
presbyters    came    after    the     apostles,  Episcop.  Controv.  pp.  7,  24. 
without    their    extraordinary     gifts. 


44  PRESBYTERY    THE    ONLY  [BOOK   I. 

the  line  of  presbyters,  is  null  and  void,  and  of  no  value  what- 
ever. To  this  we  reply,  that  there  is  sufficient  evidence  for 
an  uninterrupted  succession  of  presbyters,  from  the  days  of 
the  apostles  to  the  present  time  —  that,  on  the  other  hand, 
there  is  no  such  evidence  for  a  lineal  succession  of  prelates, 
and  that,  if  the  power  of  continuing  the  succession,  through 
presbyters,  is  denied,  no  ministerial  succession  whatever  can 
be  substantiated.1 

And  first,  we  say  there  is  sufficient  evidence  for  an  unin- 
terrupted succession  of  faithful  presbyters  in  the  church.  Let 
it  be  remembered,  that  all  prelates  are  confessedly  presbyters. 
The  presbyterate  has  always  been  deemed  an  essential  pre- 
requisite to  the  episcopate,  since  no  man  could  be  validly 
consecrated  a  prelate  who  had  not  been  first  validly  ordained 
a  presbyter.  Bellarmine  himself  declares,  that  the  prelacy  of 
such  an  one  is  a  mere  figment,  and  an  empty  title.  A  con- 
stant succession  of  validly  ordained  presbyters  is  therefore 
involved  in  the  theory  of  a  succession  of  prelates,  and  must 
be  granted  by  the  defenders  of  that  hypothesis.  By  affirm- 
ing, that  there  has  been  an  unbroken  line  of  prelates,  they 
must  of  course  allow,  that  there  has  been  an  unbroken  line 
of  presbyters,  of  whose  apostolical  origin  there  can  be  no 
question.  And  thus,  no  doubt  can  attach  to  the  claim  of  an 
uninterrupted  succession  of  presbyters,  from  the  days  of  the 
apostles  until  the  present  time.  This  fact  is  not  disput- 
ed, either  by  romanist,  prelatist,  or  presbyterian.  All  the 
fathers,  and  all  branches  of  the  church,  with  very  few  excep- 
tions, acknowledge  the  divine  institution  of  the  presbyterate 
as  an  order  of  the  christian  ministry,  and  that  it  has  contin- 
ued, in  some  good  measure,  and  in  some  valid  form,  in  the 
christian  church.  A  number  of  presbyters  were,  in  the  be- 
ginning, appointed  in  the  same  church  not  only  for  the  ardu- 
ous work  of  instruction,  but  because  of  persecution,  on  which 
account,  had  only  one  presbyter  been  fixed  in  each  church, 
the  continuance  of  the  ministry  by  succession  would  have 
been  precarious.  As  it  was,  however,  the  ministerial  suc- 
cession was  rendered  certain. - 

But  what  is  more ;  presbyters  have  been  regarded  as  the 
same  with  bishops  in  respect  to  order  and  original  inherent 
power  and  divine  right,  by  many  if  not  most  of  the  early 
fathers,  by  the  schoolmen,  by  the  greatest  divines  in  all  ages, 

1)  This  arsument  will  be  found  the  Ch.  p.  281.  This  is  also  fully  ad- 
to  have  occurred  to,  and  to  be  admit-  mitted  by  Dr.  Vaughan,  the  learned 
ted  by,  archbishop  Whateley,  in  his  advocate  of  Congregationalism,  in  his 
Kingdom  of  Christ,  Essay  ii.  §  30,  pp.  recent  work.  '  Congregationalism.' 
187,  188,  and  $  32,  p.  200,  Eng.  ed.  Lond.  1842,  pp.  205,  206. 

2)  Dr.  Wilson's   Primit.   Govt,  of 


CHAP.  I.]  MINISTERIAL    SUCCESSION.  45 

and  by  almost  all  the  churches  in  the  world.1  It  admits,  says 
Dr.  Nolan,  of  no  question,  that  presbyters  are  said  to  exercise 
the  episcopate.2  There  is,  in  truth,  as  even  prelatists  acknow- 
ledge,3 and  as  Jerome,  Augustine,  and  Chrysostom  teach,  but 
one  ultimate,  essential, and  originating  order  of  the  ministry.4 
That  such  was  the  judgment  of  the  ancient  and  universal 
church  is  made  manifest  from  the  fact,  that,  in  order  to  any 
valid  ordination,  the  concurrence  of  presbyters  with  prelates 
has  always  been  made  necessary,  in  the  imposition  of 
hands.5  Hence  we  find,  that  in  earlier  ages  bishops  acted 
only  with  the  advice  of  their  clergy,  and  in  later  times  with 
that  of  their  chapter.6  And  even  now,  we  are  informed,  that 
not  a  few  of  the  English  bishops  seem  desirous  to  revert,  as 
far  as  practicable,  to  the  primitive  character  of  primus  inter 
pares,  and,  by  manifesting  fraternal  sympathy  with  the  pres- 
bytery, to  disarm  the  envy  attendant  upon  the  episcopate.7 
We  must,  therefore,  conclude  that  presbyters  were  believed 
to  possess  the  same  original  inherent  powers  with  prelates, 
and  to  be  of  the  same  order,  or  otherwise  that  the  church  in 
every  age  and  country,  in  the  most  solemn  rite  of  ordination, 
was  guilty  of  perpetrating  by  rule  a  profane  and  inexcusable 
mockery  ;  and  that  such  was  the  established  opinion — presby- 
ters and  prelates  being  regarded  as  differing  in  consequence 
of  ecclesiastical  law  and  not  by  virtue  of  any  divine  right  — 
many  have  been  found  willing  to  testify  in  every  age.3  But 
even  if  this  were  not  the  case,  and  had  it  even  been  the 
opinion,  that  prelates  were  superior  to  presbyters,  our  conclu- 

1)  See,  on  this  subject,  Dr.  Elli-  Ep.  Ixv.  p.  102.  Ep.  lxvii.  p.  202.  Ep. 
ott  on  Romanism,  vol.  i.  pp.  451,  453.  lxxi.  p.  227.  Ep.  lxxii.  p.  228.  See  also 
457,  45S,  and  468,  478,  &c.  testimonies   to   this   effect   by   Ham- 

2)  Catholic  Character  of  Christ,  mond.  in  Baxter  on  Episc.  pp.  99  and 
p.  220.     Potter  on  Ch.   Govt.  p.  115.  68. 

Eng.    Ed.    Stillingfll.    Iren.    p.    286.  5)  See  Divine  Right  of  the  Min- 

King's   Primit.  Ch.  p.   79.     Burnet's  istry,  pt.  ii.  pp.  129,  130.     Forbesius's 

Vind.  of  the  Ch.  of  Scotl.  pp.  165,  177,  Iren.  lib.  ii.  cap.  11.     Council  of  Car- 

181.     Goode's  Rule  of  Faith,  vol.  ii.  thage,  Canons  2  and  20. 
pp.  86,  87.      Baxter  on  Episc.  pp.  68,  .  6)  See   Neat's    Hist.  vol.  iv.   pp. 

where    he    quotes  Petavius.     Bellar-  252,255,262,265.    Dr.  Hook's  Call  to 

mine  confesses  the  same  thing.     See  Union,  p.  24.    Powell  on  Apost.  Succ. 

in  Willet's  Synopsis  Papismi,  p.  270.  pp.  51,  52.  See  authorities  in  B.  ii. 

3)  See  Palmer's  Treatise  on  the  and  in  Whitby  on  1  Tim.  4:  14. 
Church.     'I  maintain,  says   Saravia,  7)  Churchman's  Monthly  Review, 
that  there  is  one  order  of  all  bishops  July,  1841,  p.  367,  and  again  370. 

and  presbyters.'    Def.  p.  286.    See  au-  '  8)    See  Div.  Right   of  the  Min. 

thorities  in  Lect.  ch.  vi.  pt.  ii.    pp.  127-141,  also  the 

4)  See  Goode's  Div.  Rule  of  Faith,  concessions  of  the  leading  defenders  of 
vol.  ii.  p.  SS.  Even  in  Cyprian,  sacer-  prelacy,  in  Baxter  on  Episcop.  ch.  v. 
dos  or  priest  usually  signifies  a  bish-  See  also  Goode's  Div.  Rule  of  Faith, 
op,  and  sacerdotium  or  priesthood  the  vol.  ii.  p.  286,  who  fully  proves  this 
episcopal  office.     Wks.  by  Marshall,  point. 


46  PRESBYTERY    THE    ONLY  [BOOK    I. 

sion  is  the  same.  For  it  is  undeniable,  that  cases  have  oc- 
curred in  which  presbyters  have  assisted  prelates  even  in  the 
consecration  of  prelates.1  This  practice  has  been  notoriously 
followed  under  the  infallible  sanction  of  Rome  herself,'2  and 
upon  its  validity  depends  that  of  both  the  Romish  and  the 
Anglican  successions.  Presbyters,  therefore,  are  capable  of 
conferring  all  the  ordination  which  is  necessary  to  constitute 
prelates,  just  as  kings,  magistrates,  and  civil  functionaries  are 
appointed  to  office  by  their  subjects  or  inferiors.  But  if  pres- 
byters have  the  power  of  conferring  official  standing  on  pre- 
lates when  they  enter  on  their  higher  office,  how  much  more 
certainly  have  they  the  power  of  appointing  presbyters  to  their 
office  with  like  powers  as  themselves,  and  thus  of  perpetuat- 
ing the  ministerial  order,  to  the  end  of  time,  without  regard 
to  prelates.3  It  is  thus  made  absolutely  certain,  that  the  order 
of  presbyters  is  a  divinely  instituted  order  of  christian  minis- 
ters, and  that  their  succession  from  the  apostles'  times  until 
the  present  hour,  has  never  been  interrupted  nor  at  any  time 
entirely  wanting,  and  also  that  these  presbyters  are  competent 
to  perpetuate  their  own  order.  On  the  other  hand  there  is  no 
such  evidence  for  an  uninterrupted  succession  of  prelates. 
The  very  existence  of  any  such  order,  by  divine  appointment, 
as  essential  to  the  perpetuation  of  the  ministry,  is  denied  by 
the  whole  of  protestant  Christendom,  with  almost  entire  unan- 
imity. Neither  can  it  ever  be  proved  that  such  an  order  was 
instituted  by  the  apostles,  or  that  it  existed  in  their  day,  or  that 
prelates  succeeded  to  their  office  and  authority.  The  allega- 
tion, that  there  has  been  in  fact  an  unbroken  lineal  succes- 
sion of  validly  ordained  and  qualified  prelates,  is  contradicted 
by  the  discordant  lists  that  are  made  out,  by  history,  by  facts, 
and  by  reason  ;  and  never  can  be  sustained  by  any  possible 
proof.  All  this  we  have  already  established,  and  all  this  is 
now  admitted  by  many.4 

And  what,  then,  is  the  conclusion  ?  The  conclusion  is, 
that  if  the  power  of  continuing  the  ministerial  succession  by 
presbyters  is  denied,  then  no  ministerial  succession  whatever 
can  be  substantiated.  And  as  it  is  now  granted  by  -Mr. 
Palmer,  and  has  been  shown  by  bishop  Taylor,  and  others, 

1)  See  the  case  fully  argued  in  dom  of  Christ.     The  same   impossi- 

Fabers  Albigenses,  Appendix.  bility  has  also  been  admitted  by  Dr. 

'J)   Sir    Palmer's   Vind.  of  Episc.  Hawkins  on   the    Apost.   Succ.  pub- 

against  Dr.  Wiseman.  lished  by  command  of  the  archbishop 

:i)    See    Whateley's    Kingdom  of  of  Canterbury.    Lond.  IS  12,  pp.  9,  10, 

Christ,  Essay  ii.  §  38,"  pp.  222,  ."-':;.  also  by  Dr.  Nolan  in  his  Catholic  Char. 

4)  This  has  been  fully  admitted  of  Christianity.   Lond.  lslj'.*,  Letter  ii. 

by  archbishop  Whateley  in  his  King-  &c. 


CHAP  I.]  MINISTERIAL    SUCCESSION.  47 

that  there  is  but  one  original  and  essential  order  of  the  min- 
istry, it  follows,  also,  either  that  presbyters  are  no  order  of  the 
christian  ministry,  nor  of  divine  appointment ;  or  that  prelates 
are  neither.  But  that  presbyters  are  such  an  order,  and  by 
divine  institution,  we  have  shown ;  and,  therefore,  prelates 
cannot  be  a  divinely  appointed  order.  On  prelatical  grounds, 
then,  there  can  be  no  succession  whatever,  while,  on  presby- 
terian  principles,  a  ministerial  succession  is  undoubted. 
Again,  on  the  prelatical  theory,  no  unbroken  or  regular  suc- 
cession can  be  made  out.  This  theory  asserts,  that  there  has 
been  a  lineal,  personal  succession  of  validly  consecrated  pre- 
lates, without  which  there  can  be  now  no  valid  or  proper 
ministerial  succession  at  all.  Now,  in  order  to  establish  this 
theory,  a  lineal  and  unbroken  personal  succession  of  validly 
consecrated  prelates  must  be  made  out,  as  it  regards  every 
link  in  the  whole  chain,  for,  as  the  validity  of  any  present 
orders,  ordinances,  and  ministry,  can  only  be  ascertained  by 
thus  tracing  them  back  to  the  apostles,  the  existence  of  this 
chain  cannot  be  taken  for  granted,  but  must  be  proved.  But 
this  never  can  be  done.  The  invalidity  of  any  one  conse- 
cration, which  formed  a  link  in  continuing  the  chain,  (and 
there  must  have  been  some  such  connecting  link,)  would 
render  all  that  followed  insecure.  But  we  have  proved,  that 
this  invalidity  commences  with  the  very  first  link  in  this  pre- 
tended chain,  and  that  it  must  have  occurred  also  at  later 
periods.1  The  presumption  against  this  succession,  conse- 
quently, is  almost  infinite.2 

On  this  theory,  therefore,  the  existence  of  any  christian 
ministry,  or  ordinances,  or  church,  is  utterly  destroyed.  But 
that  all  these  do  exist  no  christian  will  deny.  And  hence 
are  we  driven  to  the  conclusion,  that  the  presbyterial  succes- 
sion's being  the  only  sure  one,  and  the  only  one  consistent 
with  the  truth,  is  the  true  succession,  and  that  the  prelatical 
succession  is  a  mere  delusive  hypothesis  —  the  baseless  fab- 
ric of  a  vision.3  For  even  were  it  allowed  to  be  continuous, 
it  can  only,  as  has  been  seen,  be  sustained  by  acknowledging 
the  original  equality  of  presbyters  and  bishops,  and  their 
equal  capability  of  transmitting  a  valid  ordination. 

Even  allowing,  that  in  the  ministerial  succession  of  pres- 
byters many  cases  of  invalidity  occurred,  they  do  not  affect 

1)  See  Lect.  on  Apost.  Succ.  usurpation  and  convicted  pseudo-epis- 
Lect.  v.  &c.  copacy  of  prelates,  (Prose  Wks.  vol. 

2)  See  do.  Lect.  v.  and  Whate-  i.  p.  152,)  and  calls  them  '  false  proph- 
ley's  Kingdom  of  Christ.  Essay  ii.  ets  taken  in  the  greatest,  dearest,  and 
§  30  and  31,  pp.  86  and  191.  most  dangerous   cheat,   the   cheat  of 

3)  Hence,  Milton  calls  it  '  a  long  souls.'  p.  154. 


48  OUR    CLAIMS    UNDOUBTED.  [BOOK  I. 

the  ordination  of  presbyters,  generally,  nor  render  the  contin- 
uance of  such  ministers  at  all  doubtful.  An  inheritance,  that 
descends  lineally  only,  may  very  soon  pass  away  from  the 
original  family,  and  be  forfeited  by  invalidity  or  failure  in  the 
lineal  succession,  but  an  inheritance,  that  descends  both  line- 
ally and  collaterally,  and  is  thus  entailed  to  any  individual  in 
any  way  connected  with  the  family,  can  hardly  fail  to  find 
lawful  successors.  And  thus  it  appears,  how,  on  our  prin- 
ciples, the  church  and  all  its  ordinances  are  safe,  while,  on 
prelatical  principles,  they  cannot  be  regarded  as  certainly 
existing  at  all,  or  as  capable  or  restoration.  Indeed,  this 
argument  has  been  fully  admitted  by  these  men  themselves. 
'Doubtless,'  say  they, 'the  more  clear  and  simple  principle 
is,  that  of  a  ministerial  succession,  (as  distinct  from  the  pre- 
latical,) which  is  undeniable  as  a  fact,  while  it  is  most  reason- 
able as  a  doctrine,  and  sufficiently  countenanced  in  scripture 
for  its  practical  reception.'1  By  this  doctrine  the  permanen- 
cy of  the  institution  of  the  ministry  depends,  not  on  any 
exact  succession  of  individuals,  but  upon  the  divine  charter 
and  commission.  And  thus,  however  many  may  have  been 
unduly  appointed  or  have  usurped  their  functions  —  however 
many  may  have  been  the  modifications  introduced  by  human 
presumption  —  still  the  institution  is  preserved  in  its  original 
commission,  which  is  as  efficacious  and  authoritative  now  as 
when  it  was  first  issued.'-2 

A  succession  of  presbyters,  therefore,  reconciles  at  once  all 
the  difficulties  of  the  case;  provides  against  all  possible  con- 
tingences;  is  proof  against  all  cavil  and  objection  ;  is  implied 
in  every  other  theory,  and  essential  to  its  support;  and  is 
fully  adequate  to  perpetuate  the  ministry  through  every  period 
of  the  church,  to  the  end  of  time.  And  the  presbyterian  church 
being  founded  on  the  doctrines  of  the  apostles,  and  on  the 
same  ministerial  order  which  was  conferred  by  the  apostles 
on  those  'presbyters  whom  they  ordained  in  every  city,'  most 
rightfully  claims,  and  most  undeniably  possesses,  the  true 
apostolical  succession,  and  is  built  on  that  rock  against 
which  the  gates  of  hell  shall  not  prevail.3 

1)    Oxford    Tracts,    No.    7,    and  2)  See  Dr.  Hawkins  on  the  Apost. 

Whateley'a    Kingdom    of    Christ,  as  Succ.  p.  8. 

above.     Mr.  Goode.ir:  his  Divine  Rule  3)  See  this  fully  admitted  byarch- 

of  Faith,  eh.  viii.  vol.  ii.  p.  76,  argues,  bishop   Whateley,  in   his   Kingdom  of 

that  there  is  no  scripture  proof  for  any  Christ,  passim,  and  §  32,  Essay  ii.  and 

other  succession.  §  33,  $  34,  p.  205,  &c.  $  35.  §  36. 


CHAPTER  II. 


THE  CLAIMS  OF  PRESBYTERY  TO  THE  MINISTERIAL  SUCCES- 
SION SUSTAINED  BY  THE  CONDITION  OF  THE  CHURCH 
DURING  OUR  LORD'S  MINISTRY. 


§1- 


The  truth  of  the  opposing  theories  of  prelacy  and 
presbytery  must  be  decided  by  scripture. 

There  is,  as  we  have  seen,  a  clear  issue  between  the 
adherents  of  presbytery  and  prelacy,  these  affirming  what  the 
others  deny,  and  these  claiming  what  the  others  appropriate 
exclusively  to  themselves.  '  It  is  evident  unto  all  men,'  say 
prelatists,  '  diligently  reading  holy  scripture,  and  ancient 
authors,  that  from  the  apostles'  time  there  have  been  these 
orders  of  ministers  in  Christ's  church,  bishops,  priests,  and 
deacons.' x  It  is  also  alleged  to  be  equally  evident,  that  the 
order  of  prelates  '  alone  have  power  derived  from  divine  institu- 
tion, to  set  apart  men  to  preach  the  word,  and  to  dispense  the 
ordinances  of  God.'2  '  Others,'  it  is  added,  'within  the  last 
three  centuries,  have  embraced  the  opinion,  never  before 
sanctioned,  that  presbyters  have  that  power.'  It  is  thus 
affirmed,  that  there  never  was  a  time  when  these  different 
orders  of  the  christian  ministry  were  not  put  forward  as  apos- 
tolical ;  and  that  they  are  to  be  for  ever  preserved,  unaltered, 
under  the  most  solemn  obligations.3  Such  are  the  bold  and 
fearless  assertions  of  prelacy.  But  such  claims  are,  we  con- 
tend, as  baseless  as  they  are  arrogant.  No  such  orders  are  to 
be  recognised  in  the  divine  institutes,  or  in  the  polity  of  the 
apostolical  churches.  Such  assertions  are  unsupported  by 
the  testimony  of  the  apostolical  and  primitive  fathers,  and  are 

1)  Pref.  to  the  Form  and  Manner  2)   Charleston  Gospel  Messenger, 

of  making,  ordering,  and  consecrating     Feb.  1840,  p.  371. 
Bishops,  &c.  3)  Lond.  Quart.  Rev.  Dec.  1839, 

pp.  57,  65  ;  and  Oxf.  Tr.  vol.  i.  p.  160. 
7 


50  THE    BIBLE    PRESCRIBES    A  [BOOK  I. 

contradicted  by  many  later  authors ;  by  the  great  mass  of 
protestant  Christendom  ;  and  by  the  most  candid  and  learned 
writers  in  the  bosom  of  the  prelacy  itself.  These  positions 
we  shall  now  attempt  to  substantiate,  and  thus  confirm  and 
establish  the  claims  of  presbyters  to  be  the  true  and  rightful 
ministerial  successors  to  the  apostolic  college. 

It  has  already  been  shown,  that,  in  order  to  the  decision  of 
this  and  all  other  questions  relating  to  the  doctrines,  forms, 
and  order  of  the  church  of  Christ,  we  must  appeal  to  the 
tribunal  of  the  scriptures.1  We  assume,  therefore,  this  position 
as  now  determined.  Our  inquiry  simply  is  as  to  the  asserted 
fact,  that  this  prelatic  system  has  been  conveyed  from  the 
apostles  and  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ.  It  is  on  this  point  we 
are  at  issue  with  prelatists.  We  reject  the  prelatic  theory  of 
three  orders,  not  merely  because  it  is  unwritten,  and  tradition- 
ally handed  down,  but  because  it  is  not  proved  to  have  been 
revealed  at  all ;  and  because  no  single  article,  not  capable  of 
proof  from  the  scriptures,  has  ever  yet  been  traced  to  the 
supreme  authority  of  a  divine  revelation.'2  The  only  question 
before  us,  then,  is,  the  jus  divinum  of  prelacy;  and  how  this 
can  be  proved  when  men  leave  the  scriptures,  ('which  they 
do,  in  effect,  when  they  call  on  the  help  of  succeeding  ages  to 
make  the  scriptures  speak  plain  for  them,')  is  to  our  minds  a 
most  profound  mystery.3  Could  the  united  testimony  of  the 
fathers  be  produced  in  favor  of  any  opinion,  what  would  it 
avail  against  the  evidence  of  scripture?  '  What,'  asks  the 
apostle,  '  though  some  or  all  have  not  believed ;  shall  their 
unbelief  make  the  faith  of  God  without  effect?  God  forbid. 
Yea,  let  God  be  true,  but  every  man  a  liar.'  '  He  abideth 
faithful,  and  cannot  deny  himself.'  Nay,  so  highly  does  God 
esteem  his  word,  '  that  he  willeth  us,  in  it,  to  judge  both  angels 
and  the  whole  world;'  and  will,  by  it,  himself  judge  us  at 
the  last  great  day. 

§  2.     Some  determinate  scheme  of  church  government 
contained  in  scripture. 

But  there  is  a  very  prevalent  opinion,  long  current  in  the 
English  Church,4  that,  however  distinct  and  determinate 
scripture  may  be  in  laying  down  the  doctrines  of  Christianity, 

1)  Lect.  on  Apost.  Succ.  Lect.  ii.  &c.  p.  339.  in  Plea   for  Presb.  p.  244. 
iii.  and  iv.  See  also  Sherlock  on  do.  p.  267. 

2)  See  Hawkins's  Bampt.   Lect.  4)  See  Lect.  on  Apost.  Succ.  and 
p.  208.  in   archbishop    Whateley's    Kingdom 

3)  Stillingfleet's    Divine    Right,  of  Christ,  Sect.  iii.  and  xvi. 


CHAP.  II.]  FORM    OF    CHURCH    POLITY.  51 

it  does  not  prescribe,  as  essential,  any  form  of  church  govern- 
ment or  order.  This  theory  was  maintained  generally  by 
the  English  reformers  ;  was  most  ably  defended  by  Stiiling- 
fleet;  and  is  still  advocated.1  But  it  is  now  generally  and 
justly  exploded,  even  by  those  who  acknowledge  the  obscu- 
rity or  silence  of  scripture  on  this  subject,  and  the  necessity 
of  oral  tradition,  in  order  to  its  right  interpretation  and  full 
understanding.  We  are,  therefore,  to  assume,  that  some 
determinate  principles  of  church  government  are  laid  down 
in  scripture,  and  that,  so  far  as  they  can  be  brought  to  light, 
they  are  imperatively  binding  upon  the  conscience;  and  are 
to  be  implicitly  followed  out  in  every  scheme  of  church  polity 
claiming  to  be  scriptural.2  Not  that  we  are  to  expect  in 
scripture  a  minute  and  systematized  detail  of  all  the  regula- 
tions necessary  in  carrying  on  the  working  of  this  ecclesias- 
tical machinery.  We  are  to  steer  a  middle  course  between 
the  extreme  of  Erastianism  on  the  one  hand,  which  denies 
that  any  principles  of  church  government  whatever  are  to  be 
found  in  the  word  of  God ;  and  of  Judaism  on  the  other, 
which  would  proscribe,  as  sinful,  whatever  is  not  set  down  in 
so  many  words  in  this  divine  record.  As  the  New  Testament 
contains  no  systematic  treatise  on  doctrine  or  morals,  but 
leaves  us  to  construct  a  system  of  belief  and  practice,  by  a 
diligent  comparison  of  its  various  texts,  and  the  application 
of  its  general  precepts ;  so  neither  does  it  present  any  formal 
digest  of  ecclesiastical  canons,  but  leaves  us  to  frame  our 
scheme  of  discipline  and  polity  by  a  careful  analysis  and 
extension  of  its  general  principles.  The  conclusion,  therefore, 
that  church  polity  is  unimportant,  or  not  instituted,  because 
it  is  not  fully  and  systematically  drawn  forth  in  scripture,  in 
didactic  arrangement,  is  no  less  preposterous  than  would  be 
the  supposition,  that  the  system  of  christian  doctrines  is,  for 
similar  reasons,  indeterminate  or  mutable.  The  christian 
revelation  is  distinguished  from  the  Jewish,  as  being  less  a 
code  of  minute  laws,  than  of  general  principles.  This 
character  of  the  gospel  dispensation  arose,  partly,  from  the 
circumstances  in  which  the  church  was  at  first  placed.  When 
the  regular  delineation  of  their  future  polity  was  given  to  the 
Jews,  no  model  existed  by  which  they  could  have  been 
guided  in  the  application  of  any  comprehensive  orders.  But 
when  the  christian  church  was  made  to  displace  the  Jewish, 

1)  The  latest  defence  of  this  Govt,  by  the  Rev.  John  Medley;  and 
theory  is  Dr.  Nolan's  Catholic  Char.  Episcopacy  Tested  by  Scripture,  by 
of  Christianity.  Bishop  Onderdonk. 

2)  See  the  Episcop.  Form  of  Ch. 


52  THE    BIBLE    PRESCRIBES    A  [BOOK  I. 

and  the  whole  order  and  polity  of  its  temple-service,  which 
was  local  and  typical,  was  done  away,  God  had  so  ordered 
it,  that  in  every  village,  and  wherever  throughout  the  world 
Jews  had  been  scattered  abroad,  there  was  established  a  form 
of  simple,  parochial,  and  universal  polity  in  the  regulations 
of  the  synagogue.  A  system  of  formally  digested  rules  for 
church  government,  already  drawn  out,  and  in  practical  ope- 
ration in  all  parts  of  the  world,  was  therefore  familiar  to  the 
first  christian  converts,  since  in  almost  every  place,  they 
primarily  consisted  of  Jewish  proselytes.  The  apostles  and 
evangelists,  therefore,  writing  for  the  benefit  of  ordinary 
persons,  who  were  all  well  acquainted  with  this  existing 
constitution  of  church  government,  supposing  them  to  have 
adopted  this  plan,  might  be  expected  to  make  allusion  to  it, 
as  to  something  familiar,  and  not  requiring  any  very  specific 
detail.  Now  this  is  just  what  the  writers  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment do;  and  from  these  allusions  to  ordinances  already 
established,  and  a  diligent  comparison  of  passages,  a  system 
may  be  clearly  gathered  for  the  government  of  the  christian 
church. 

Such  a  system  of  church  government  we  are  irresistibly  led 
to  anticipate,  in  those  records  which  God  has  left  for  the  ben- 
efit of  his  church,  and  for  our  instruction,  upon  whom  the 
ends  of  the  world  have  come.  This  expectation  is  suggest- 
ed equally  by  the  consideration  of  the  character  of  God  —  of 
his  church  —  and  of  his  word.  God  is  a  God  of  order  not  of 
confusion,  and  if,  in  the  frame  of  the  natural  and  the  moral 
world,  '  order  is  heaven's  first  law,'  and  the  bond  and  cement 
of  the  universe,  how  can  we  imagine  that  this  principle  would 
be  violated  or  overlooked,  in  the  construction  of  that  glori- 
ous temple,  consecrated  by  the  death  and  sacrifice  of  his  own 
Son,  and  by  the  presence  and  indwelling  of  the  ever-blessed 
Spirit  ?  The  supposition  is  impossible,  and  contradictory  to 
every  other  manifestation  of  the  divine  mind.  What  is  the 
church,  but  that  visible  kingdom,  society,  or  vessel,  by  which 
the  elected  children  of  God  are  to  be  here  trained  and  fitted 
for  mansions  in  the  skies,  and  borne  in  safety,  across  this 
present  sea  of  life,  to  the  haven  of  eternal  peace  ?  And  can 
we  imagine  that  this  instrumentality,  for  the  accomplishment 
of  such  glorious  ends,  would  be  left  like  a  vessel  without  a 
rudder,  compass,  pilot,  or  chart,  at  the  mercy  of  every  wave, 
to  be  driven  about  by  every  wind  of  doctrine.  The  supposi- 
tion is  destroyed  by  its  own  flagrant  absurdity.  Look  we, 
then,  to  the  word  of  God ;  and  whether  we  consider  it  as  the 
inspiration  of  Him  who  is  all-wise,  omniscient,  and  infallible, 


CHAP.  II-]  FORM    OF    CHURCH    POLITY.  53 

or  as  designed  to  be  a  perfect  and  infallible  rule  to  our  faith 
and  practice,  we  are  equally  led  to  expect  that  it  will  make  us 
wise  in  all  that  pertains  to  the  present  enjoyment,  and  the 
greatest  possible  fruition,  of  the  great  salvation  ;  and  that  we 
shall  not  therefore  be  left  in  uncertainty  as  to  those  means, 
by  which  we  are  to  grow  in  grace  and  in  the  knowledge  of 
God  our  Saviour.  In  every  view  of  the  matter,  we  are  thus 
necessarily  induced  to  look  to  the  Bible  for  satisfactory  infor- 
mation as  to  all  points  necessary  to  the  establishment,  and  the 
permanent  well-being  and  security  of  that  church,  which  was 
to  comprehend  in  its  wide  dominion  all  nations,  all  ages,  and 
all  conditions. 

Nor  are  we  disappointed  in  this  anticipation.  There  is 
every  thing  to  sustain  it  in  the  developments  of  this  inspired 
volume.  Here  we  learn,  that  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ  is  the 
only  King  and  Head  of  the  church,  which  is  his  house,  family, 
and  kingdom  —  that  this  church  is  visible  —  that  to  it,  as  such, 
Christ  has  given  a  ministry,  ordinances,  and  laws  —  and  that 
its  government  is  derived  from  Him  alone,  no  other  power, 
civil  or  spiritual,  having  authority  to  legislate  for  it,  or  to  frame 
laws,  and  institute  offices  binding  on  the  consciences  of  men. 
Here  too  we  learn,  that  this  authority  and  power  has  been  exer- 
cised by  the  King  and  Head  of  the  church,  in  the  appointment 
of  officers  —  in  the  erection  of  a  government — in  the  institution 
of  standing  ordinances  —  in  the  prescription  of  certain  and  def- 
inite ends  —  in  the  explicit  limitation  of  his  people  to  whatsoev- 
er he  has  taught  —  in  the  promise  of  his  continual  presence  — 
and  in  the  threatening  of  his  withdrawal,  and  the  visitations  of 
his  wrath.1  Christ  is  thus  declared  to  be  the  '  Head  of  his  body, 
the  church  —  that  in  all  things  he  might  have  the  preeminence, 
God  having  put  all  things  under  his  feet,  and  given  him  to  be 
Head  over  all  things  to  the  church.  The  Lord  is  our  Judge,  the 
Lord  is  our  Lawgiver,  the  Lord  is  our  King,  and  the  govern- 
ment shall  be  upon  his  shoulder.'  Just  as  certainly,  therefore, 
as  the  prophetical  office  of  Christ  excludes  all  superadded 
revelations,  and  his  priestly  office  all  other  meritorious  satis- 
factions and  intercessions;  so  also  does  his  kingly  office  im- 
ply the  same  exclusive  perfection  in  the  offices,  ordinances, 
censures,  laws,  and  government  of  his  kingdom  or  church. 

The  essentials  of  church  polity  must  then  be  looked  for  in 
the  scriptures,  nor  can  it  be  allowed,  that  man  has  power  to 

1 )  Is.  9 :  6.  Col.  1:18.  Eph.  1  :  22.  23.     Tit.  1:5.      1  Tim.  5:14.     Matt. 

Matt.  28:  8-10.    2  Tim.  1  :  2.  1  Cor.  18:15,16.     1  Thes.  5  :  14.     1  Pet.  5  : 

14:  14.    2  Tim.  4:2.  Col.  3:  16.  Eph.  2,3.     Eph.  4:11-13.     2  Tim.  4  :  1. 

5  :  19.    1  Cor.  14:  15,  16.     1  Cor.  11  :  1  Tim.  4:  14.     Acts  15,  &c,  &c. 


54  THE    BIBLE    PRESCRIBES    A  [BOOK   I- 

alter  or  change  those  forms  or  orders,  whether  integral  or  ac- 
cidental to  the  church,  which  Christ  has  instituted.  And  if 
presbyterianism  shall  be  found  thus  consonant  to  the  divine 
institution,  then,  before  abandoning  it,  those  who  wish  to  alter 
or  amend  it,  must  in  all  conscience  prove  that,  being  thus 
apostolical,  it  is  nevertheless  mutable,  or  that  they  have  re- 
ceived authority  to  change  it.  That  which  the  apostles  insti- 
tuted, in  the  execution  of  Christ's  commission,  and  under  the 
promise  of  his  infallible  guidance,  must  be  regarded  as  insti- 
tuted by  Christ  himself  and  by  his  Spirit,  and  as  unchange- 
able, except  by  the  same  divine  and  infallible  authority.  In 
like  manner  the  form  and  order  thus  instituted  by  the  apostles, 
and  for  a  time  carried  into  operation,  must  be  regarded  as  per- 
petually in  force,  unless  they  have  themselves  given  directions 
for  the  change.  And  finally,  since  the  idea  that  there  is  no 
divine  institution  of  church  government,  in  its  essential  ele- 
ments, destroys  all  certainty  of  the  purity  and  character  of  the 
church  of  Christ.  Such  a  supposition  cannot  be  granted,  but 
must  be  at  once  rejected,  as  derogatory  to  the  character  of 
God  —  of  his  church,  and  of  his  word.  For,  if  the  officers  of 
the  church  are  at  liberty  to  change  its  polity,  why  may  they 
not  also  change  its  ordinances,  its  doctrines,  its  scripture,  and 
all  things  pertaining  to  life  and  salvation?  Bat  as  this  sup- 
position is  impious  and  absurd,  so  also  must  be  fhe  principle 
from  which  it  flows. 

The  primitive  order  of  the  church  is,  therefore,  distinctly  at- 
tributed to  a  divine  source,  by  the  apostle  Paul ;  for  '  God,' 
saith  he,  'hath  set  some  in  the  church, first  apostles, secondly 
prophets,  thirdly  teachers,  helps,  governments.'  '  He,'  that  is 
Christ,  having  ascended  to  heaven,  that  he  might  confer  all  the 
gifts  necessary  to  the  promulgation  of  the  gospel,  and  the  plant- 
ing of  churches, 'gave  some  to  be  apostles,  some  to  be  prophets, 
and  some  to  be  pastors  and  teachers.'  (Eph.4:  11.)  That  is,  he 
gave  some  to  be  extraordinary  officers, '  to  prepare  the  saints  for 
the  duties  of  the  fixed  or  permanent  state  of  the  church,'  under 
the  ministry  of  their  pastors  and  teachers,  that  thus  the  church 
might  be  permanently  settled  and  perfected,1  (see  v.  12.)  In 
another  place  he  speaks  'of  our  authority,  which  the  Lord  hath 
given  us  for  edification,'  2  Cor.  10  :  8.  We  are  thus  exhorted, 
that  '  those  things  which  we  have  both  learned  and  received 
and  heard  and  seen  in'  the  apostles,  we  are  '  to  do,  and  the  God 
of  peace  shall  be  with  us';  while  on  the  other  hand  we  have 
a  most  fearful  warning,  that,  '  if  any  man  shall  add  unto  these 

1 )  See  Dr.  Wilson  on  the  Prim  Govt,  of  the  Ch.  pp.  277-279. 


CHAP.  II.]  FORM    OF    CHURCH    POLITY.  55 

things   God  shall  add  unto  him  the  plagues  that  are  in  this 
book.' 

There  is,  therefore,  in  its  essential  principles,  a  system  of 
church  government  instituted  by  God,  and  of  divine  right.1 
In  these  essential  principles,  we  claim  for  this  system  of  church 
polity  a  divine  right  in  the  highest  sense,  that  is,  the  clear,  ex- 
press, and  positive  institution  and  command  of  Christ.  In 
this  respect  it  is  permanent  and  unalterable.  In  less  essen- 
tial matters  we  do  not,  however,  claim  such  express  institu- 
tion ;  and  yet  even  these  should  be  of  divine  right,  in  the  sec- 
ond and  more  extended  sense  of  the  term,  that  is,  such  as  are 
warranted  by  the  example  of  Christ,  or  his  apostles,  or  the 
churches  instituted  by  them.'-  Whatever  government,  there- 
fore, pretends  to  be  scriptural  and  apostolic,  must  be  conso- 
nant to  this  divine  pattern.  Forms  of  church  polity  that  are 
contradictory,  cannot  both  be  agreeable  to  this  scriptural  mod- 
el, and  whatever  is  dissonant  to  it  must  inevitably  be  regard- 
ed as  human  and  not  divine.  To  make  any  thing  essential 
to  the  visible  church,  which  Christ  has  not  instituted,  is  to  in- 
trude upon  his  sovereignty,  assume  his  sceptre,  and  dethrone 
him  from  his  empire.  To  make  nothing  essential  to  the  gov- 
ernment of  the  church,  is  equally  to  reject  his  authority  and 
divine  supremacy  and  rule  ;  while  to  seek  in  all  things  his 
will,  and  to  submit  to  his  teaching,  is  the  course  of  true,  obe- 
dient, and  faithful  subjects  of  his  spiritual  kingdom. 

Acting  on  these  principles  we  are  constrained  to  regard  the 
prelatic  form  of  church  government,  in  so  far  as  it  transcends 
the  limits  of  presbyterianism,  and  asserts  the  divine  authority 
of  three  distinct  orders  in  the  ministry,  to  be  merely  of  human 
invention ;  whilst  we,  as  assuredly,  believe  the  presbyterian 
polity,  in  those  essential  principles  in  which  it  is  found  to 
harmonize  with  the  great  body  of  protestantism,  to  be  of 
divine  origin  and  authority.  Distinguishing,  however,  as  we 
do,  doctrines  from  discipline,  the  end  from  the  means,  and 
what  is  fundamental  from  what,  though  in  itself  right  and 
true,  and  according  to  divine  example,  is  not  essential,  we  are 

1)  See  Div.  Right  of  Ch.  Govt.ch.  Royal  Prerog.  p.  17.      Milton's  Prose 

1.     Also  Henderson's  Rev.  and  Con-  Wks.  vol.  i.  p.  80,  &c.     Reason  of  Ch. 

sideration,  pp.  315-319,  94,  343.    Par-  Govt.  B.  i.  ch.  i.  and  xi.  and  Allsop's 

ker'sPol.  Eccl.  lib.ii.c.  40,pp.  324,  &c.  Melius   Inquirendum,  pt.  ii.  pp.  290, 

Deut.  4 :  12.  Josh.  1 :  17.     Prov.  30  :  3.  294,  Lond.  1697,  third  ed.    Woodgate's 

Gal.  3:  15.     Rev.  22  :  18.     Augustine  Bampton  Lect.  pp.  160,  162. 
Cont.  Faust, lib. xxx. c.  18.  Basil  xMora,  2)  Bp.  Sanderson's  Div.  Right  of 

c.  14.     Chrysostomln  Agg.  c.  1.     Cy-  the  Episcopate.      Angl.  Fathers,  vol. 

ril  in  Lev.  c.  9.  Bede  in  1  Pet.  5.  Cart-  i.  p.  301. 
wright  in  Prov.  30,  6,  &c.     See  Sion's 


56  THE    BIBLE    PRESCRIBES    A  [BOOK  I. 

still  enabled  to  rejoice  in  the  hope,  that  where  the  true  doc- 
trines are  maintained,  and  yet  aberrations  from  the.  scriptural 
polity  are  introduced  in  the  conscientious  belief  that  they  are 
in  conformity  with  the  divine  will,  and  promotive  of  the 
divine  glory,  there,  there  are  branches  of  the  visible  church. 
Such  denominations  are  valid,  although  not  regular  —  real, 
though  imperfect  churches.  They  hold  to  the  foundation,  and 
will  therefore  be  acknowledged  as  true  churches.  But  the 
wood,  hay,  and  stubble  of  man's  inventions,  which  they  have 
built  thereon,  shall  finally  be  condemned,1  and  are  now 
hindrances  and  impediments  to  success,  and  clogs  to  spirit- 
ual enlargement  and  growth  in  grace.  Such  churches  may 
possess  the  things  which  must  be  in  order  to  salvation,  but 
not  all  that  ought  to  be  in  order  to  edification.  They  may 
receive  what  is  essential  in  revealed  truth,  and  yet  not  all 
that  is  prescribed  to  us  as  divine  ordinances. 

It  is,  however,  the  imperative  duty  of  all  men  to  under- 
stand, so  far  as  they  have  ability  and  opportunity,  the  char- 
acter and  signs  of  the  true  church  and  kingdom  of  Christ, 
and  to  attach  themselves  to  that  branch  of  it  which  is  found 
most  consonant  to  the  scriptures,  in  its  doctrines,  its  ordinan- 
ces, and  its  constitution.2  The  church,  as  a  divine  society, 
cannot  exist  without  laws,  and  order,  nor  can  it  attain  its  full 
maturity  with  any  other  polity  than  that  chosen  for  it  by  its 
divine  head.  To  this,  therefore,  we  are  bound  to  adhere,  and 
fortius  are  we  called  upon  to  contend  earnestly,  as  well  knowing 
that  there  is  no  other  foundation  so  secure  and  glorious,  as  that 
which  is  laid  in  Zion, and  which  is  built  upon  the  apostles  and 
prophets,  Jesus  Christ  himself  being  the  chief  corner-stone.3 

We  are  thus  summoned  to  the  examination  of  this  subject, 
not  as  a  question  of  speculative  inquiry  but  of  grave  and 
practical  moment.  The  system  of  church  polity  is  not  a 
matter  of  indifference,  or  a  theory  about  which  we  may  hold 
discordant  opinions,  but  as  imposed  upon  us  by  divine 
authority,  and  connected  with  our  own  best  interests.  And 
the  whole  of  ecclesiastical  history  will  testify,  that  when  the 
simple  rites  of  scriplural  order  have  been  set  aside,  forms  of 
worship,  and  a  system  of  ecclesiastical  despotism,  and  cor- 
rupt doctrine,  altogether  opposed  to  the  grave,  spiritual,  manly. 

1)   Hence,  it  is  a  calumny  in   Bp.  regal  and   prelatical  authority.     Div. 

Sanderson,  to  represent  presbvterians  Right  of  the  Episcop.  in  Angl.  Fathers, 

as  making  the  whole  form  <>f  their  vol.  i.  p. 309. 

polity  as  eBsential  as  the  word  and  2)  Matt.  5:  10.    1  John,  4:  1.    1 

sacraments,  in     order    to    cover   the  Thess.  5:1. 

shameless  effrontery  of  his  own  claim,  3)  Dr.  Hawkins    on    the   Apost. 

of  the  highest  divine   right   for  both  Succ.  p.  22. 


CHAP.    II.]  FORM    OF    CHURCH    POLITY.  57 

and  free  spirit  of  Christianity,  have  been  introduced.  Of 
this  we  shall  have  melancholy  illustration,  in  the  final  sup- 
pression, by  prelatic  and  papal  fraud,  and  tyranny,  of  the 
primitive,  scriptural,  and  presbyterian  church  of  Scotland.1 
In  the  mean  time,  let  us  feel,  that  it  is  our  great  and  signal 
privilege  to  have  received,  together  with  apostolic  truth,  the 
very  structure  of  apostolic  order.  We  have  no  church  formed 
by  ecclesiastical  skill  —  no  humanly  devised  ministry — but 
that  church  and  ministry  begun  by  Christ,  and  continued, 
expanded,  and  completed  by  his  apostles.  Our  system  is  not 
only  right  and  proper,  but  also  scriptural  and  divine,  and 
therefore  efficacious,  because  it  is  of  Christ's  institution  and 
promise.  And  while  we  may  rejoice  in  believing  that  other 
churches  differing  from  ours  are  blessed  of  God,  we  may  be 
very  sure  that  ours  is  a  church  moulded  and  fashioned  after 
his  own  pattern. 

§  3.  The  character  of  the  church  and  its  ministry,  during 
our  Lord's  continuance  with  it,  was  presbyterian  and 
not  prelatical. 

Let  us  now  proceed  to  inquire,  whether  this  system  of 
prelacy,  as  founded  upon  the  assumption  of  three  essentially 
distinct  orders  of  ministers,  was  instituted  by  Christ  during 
the  period  in  which  he  ministered  as  the  teacher  sent  from 
God.     This  is  affirmed  by  prelatists,2  and  this  we  deny. 

Since  the  whole  question  is  involved  in  the  exclusive 
claims  of  the  order  of  prelates  as  distinct  from  and  superior 
to  that  of  presbyters  and  deacons,  it  will  be  necessary  to 
understand  what  are  the  peculiar  powers  or  prerogatives 
attributed  to  this  highest  order.  We  shall  then  be  able  more 
satisfactorily  to  determine  the  character  and  office  of  the  sev- 
eral functionaries  spoken  of  throughout  the  New  Testament. 
For  as  it  is  on  all  hands  admitted,  that  mere  variety  of  names 
does  not  prove  a  variety  of  orders,  this  can  be  ascertained 
only  by  the  nature  of  the  functions  with  which  such  names 
are  connected. 

The  chief  powers  believed  to  be  resident  in  prelates,  as  the 
first  order  of  the  christian  ministry,  are  described  by  arch- 
bishop Potter  to  be,  preaching,  praying,  baptizing,  adminis- 
tering the  Lord's  supper,  ordaining  ministers,  and  exercising 

1)  Hetherington's  Hist,  of  Ch.  of  2)     See  Lectures  on  Apost.  Sue, 

Scotl.  p.  17.  Lect.  vi.  p.  148.     Additional  Note. 

8 


58  CHRIST     SENT     OUT     ONLY     ONE  [BOOK  I. 

spiritual  jurisdiction.1  Similar  are  the  views  of  bishop 
Bilson,  bishop  Taylor,2  Dr.  Chandler,3  and  Dr.  Bowden.4 

Hadrian  Saravia,  in  explanation  of  the  ordinary  functions 
of  an  apostle,  as  described  by  St.  Paul  in  the  words  dispen- 
sation of  the  mysteries  of  God,'  (1  Cor.  4:  1,)  more  logically, 
and  we  think  accurately,  arranges  them,  under  three  divis- 
ions—  first,  ihe  preaching  of  the  gospel;  secondly,  the  admin- 
istration of  the  sacraments;  thirdly,  authority  for  governing 
the  church.  'To  the  third  part,'  he  adds,  'further  pertains  the 
power  of  the  keys  of  the  kingdom  of  heaven,  and  of  binding 
and  loosing  on  earth  what  shall  be  bound  and  loosed  in  hea- 
ven ;  and  this  has  two  subdivisions,  one  the  ordination  of 
ministers,  the  other  censorship  of  manners.'5 

Such,  then,  being  the  self-acknowledged  powers  claimed  for 
prelates,  we  proceed  to  inquire,  whether  these  functions  were 
conferred  by  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ  upon  any  one  class  of 
men,  to  be  exercised  by  them  over  two  inferior  orders  ?  The 
Rev.  T.  Hartwell  Home,  in  enumerating  the  functions  of 
prelates,  identifies  their  office  with  such  a  superintendency, 
making  it  to  consist  in  these  four  things;  '1,  in  ordaining 
presbyters  and  deacons ;  2,  in  superintending  the  doctrine  of 
these  ministers;  3,  in  superintending  their  conduct;  4,  in  reg- 
ulating those  matters  in  the  church  not  settled  by  divine  au- 
thority.'6 If,  then,  there  were  such  prelates  during  our  Lord's 
ministry,  we  may  demand  some  proof  of  their  commission 
and  authority.  Where  are  these  orders  enumerated  in  the 
record  of  our  Saviour's  life  ?  Where  do  we  find  their  res- 
pective commissions  ?     Where  the  distinct  enumeration  of 

1)  On  Ch.  Govt.  ch.  v.     To  this  tinctive  of  a  prelate,  are,  according  to 
might  be  added,  if  it  could  be  regarded  Dr.  Chandler,  '  the  powers  of  govern- 
as  even  an  imaginary  power  or  ascer-  ment,  ordination,  and  confirmation.t 
tained  ordinance,  the  power  of  con-  4)     Bowden,   1.  Works  on  Epis- 
firmation.  cop.  vol.  ii.  p.  140. 

2)  '  Yet  the  apostles'  charge  to  5)  Of  the  Priesthood,  pp.  52,  53, 
teach,  baptize,  and  administer  the  ch.  1.  See  also  Thorndike's  Prim. 
Lord's  supper,  to  bind  and  loose  sin-  Govt,  of  the  Ch.  Lond.ed.  1S40,  pp.  90, 
ners  in  heaven  and  in  earth,  to  impose  99,118,  148,  &c.  Bishop  Sanderson 
hands  for  the  ordaining  of  pastors  and  enumerates  what  is  peculiar  to  bishops 
elders,  these  parts  of  the  apostolic  func-  under  ordination  and  managing  the 
tion  and  charge  are  not  decayed,  and  keys.  See  Div.  Right  of  the  Episco- 
cannot  be  wanted  in  the  church  of  pate  in  Anglican  Fathers,  vol.  i.  pp. 
God.      There    must     either    be     no  305, 307. 

church,  or  else  these  must  remain ;  for  6)    See  these  points  fully  illustrat- 

without    these    no   church    can   con-  ed  in  Note  A  to  his  Discourse  on  the 

tinue.' *     See  also  Sinclair's  Vind.  of  Conformity    of  the   Ch.  of  Engl,   to 

the  Episc.  Succ.  pp.  16,  18.  Apo.  Preceptand  Pattern,  Lond.  1834. 


3)     The   powers   especially  dis- 

»)    Bishop  E 
Ch.  ch.  ix.  p.  105. 


t)    App.on  Behalf  of  the  Ch.  of  Engl,  in 
*)     Bishop   Bilson,  Pcrp.   Govt,  of  Chr.      Amer.  p.  14. 


CHAP   II.]  ORDER     OF     MINISTERS.  59 

their  several  functions  ?  Or  where  are  we  informed,  that  these 
orders  were  instituted  by  Christ,  and  made  essential  to  the 
constitution  of  his  church? 

That  on  different  occasions  Christ  sent  forth  the  twelve  dis- 
ciples, and  other  seventy  also,  we  are,  indeed,  informed.  But 
this  he  could  not  do  in  the  character  of  an  order  in  the  chris- 
tian ministry;  since,  as  has  been  already  shown,  the  christian 
church  was  not  established  until  after  Christ's  resurrection, 
when  and  not  till  when  he  had  finished  his  work  as  our  Me- 
diator—  laid  the  foundations  of  his  kingdom  —  and  estab- 
lished the  everlasting  covenant.  That  plenitude  of  power 
whereby,  as  King  and  Head  of  his  church,  he  now  administers 
its  affairs,  was  then  given  to  Him  in  recompense  of  His  hu- 
miliation, sufferings,  and  death,  (Phil.  2  :  8-11,)  and  was  man- 
ifested by  Him  in  the  bestowment  of  these  very  ministerial 
offices.  (Eph.  4:  8,11,  12.)  *  These  individuals,  we  must 
therefore  conclude,  were  employed  by  our  Lord  merely  as  his 
ministering  disciples,  to  execute  temporary  and  special  com- 
missions, and  not  as  organized,  separate,  and  perpetual  offi- 
cers. The  good  tidings  they  were  to  proclaim  were  only  of 
the  approaching'  kingdom  of  heaven.  It  was  a  joyful  expec- 
tation they  were  commissioned  to  spread  ;  and  the  preparation 
of  men's  hearts  for  the  coming  of  the  kingdom,  was  all  they 
had  authority  to  enforce.  Having  executed  this  required  em- 
bassy they  returned  to  Christ,  and  rendered  in  an  account  of 
their  proceedings.  Of  the  seventy  we  read  nothing  further 
than  that  they  were  thus  sent  forth.  "We  are  not  informed 
that  they  were  ever  afterwards  engaged  in  the  same  service. 
The  twelve,  however,  after  their  return,  continued  with  Christ,2 
because  they  were  his  chosen  witnesses,  and  selected  as  his 
future  apostles  or  extraordinary  ambassadors ;  that  they  might, 
by  communication  with  him,  be  fully  instructed  and  qualified 
for  their  important  charge;  and  be  publicly  known  as  his 
followers  and  as  his  companions  during  the  whole  course  of 
his  ministry.  Christ  formed  these  twelve  as  it  were  into  an 
apostolic  college  —  the  exemplar  of  all  theological  semina- 
ries—  and  for  the  space  of  three  years  continued  to  indoctrin- 
ate them  in  the  truths  pertaining  to  his  kingdom.  It  is  idle, 
therefore,  to  attempt  to  transform  these  temporary  officers  into 
permanent  orders  of  the  christian  ministry.  All  that  Christ 
did  up  to  the  close  of  his  life,  was  preparatory  to  the  great 
and  final  consummation  achieved  by  his  death.  Till  then 
there  could  be  no  christian  church,  no  christian  ordinances, 

1)     See  Chap.  I.  2)    See  Potter,  on  Ch.  Govt.  p.  45. 


60  CHRIST     SENT     OCT     ONLY     ONE  [BOOK   I. 

and  no  christian  ministry.  These  disciples  were  not,  then, 
authorized  to  act  as  apostles  in  proclaiming  the  kingdom  of 
heaven  as  established  —  or  in  making  it  known  to  all  without 
distinction  —  but  were  on  the  contrary  sent  out  on  a  tempo- 
rary agency,  and  limited  expressly  to  the  Jewish  cities  and 
people,  as  the  field  of  their  operations.1 

It  may  be  objected  to  this  view  of  the  matter,  that  the  twelve  are 
uncmestionably  denominated  apostles  during  our  Lord's  minis- 
try, and  that  they  must  therefore  be  regarded  as  truly  apostles. 
This  title  is,  it  is  confessed,  once  used  by  the  evangelist,  in  giving 
a  list  of  their  names,  but  this  he  might  have  done  either  in  the 
general  and  unlimited  sense  of  that  term,  or  because  he  wrote 
after  they  had  received  this  title  in  its  specific  designation.  Ac- 
cordingly we  find,  that  when  our  Lord  first  gave  them  this  name, 
(Luke,  6:  13,)  they  had  received  no  commission  whatever,  so 
that  they  must  have  received  it  in  anticipation,  or  in  an  unoffi- 
cial sense.2  This  view  of  the  matter  is  remarkably  confirmed, 
by  a  reference  to  what  is  regarded  by  prelatists,  as  the  first 
commission  of  the  twelve.  (Malt.  10.)  In  delivering  to 
them,  on  this  occasion,  his  instructions,  Christ  does  not  em- 
ploy the  term  apostles.  It  was  'his  twelve  disciples'  Jesus 
called  together.  It  was  to  'his  twelve  disciples'  he  gave 
miraculous  endowments.  It  was  '  these  twelve'  he  sent  forth 
'  two  by  two.'  Throughout  the  entire  discourse  delivered  by 
our  Saviour  on  that  occasion,  he  speaks  of  '  his  disciples.' 
Nay,  even  after  having  been  thus  commissioned,  they  are 
still  spoken  of,  not  as  apostles,  but  as  '  the  twelve  disciples,' 
(see  Matt.  11:  1,)  and  it  was  in  this  character  they  went 
through  the  towns  and  villages  preaching  that  men  should 
repent,  and  that  the  kingdom  of  heaven  was  at  hand.  Until 
they  had  thus  returned  back,  and  Jesus  was  going  up  to  Jeru- 
salem to  suffer,  the  twelve  'are  generally,  if  not  always,  men- 
tioned under  the  common  appellation  of  disciples,  as  far  as  I 
can  remember.'1'  The  sole  duty  enjoined  upon  them  was  to 
make  ihis  proclamation,  and  to  present  miraculous  attestation 
to  the  truth  of  Christ's  character  and  mission  as  the  long  promis- 
ed and  expected  Messiah.  Having,  as  Mark  tells  us,  fulfilled 
this  work,  (ch.  6 :  12, 13,)  '  they  returned,  and  told  Jesus  all  that 
they  had  done.'  (Luke  9:  10.)  Their  commission  was 
now  fully  executed.     They  were  now  to  accompany  Jesus, 

1)     See  Hinds's  Hist,  of  the  Rise  Harrington's  Works,  vol.  ii.  pp.  11,  12, 

and  Progress  of  Christianity,  vol.  i   p.  43,  6 

149.     'Their  former  commission,  as  2)     See  Potter  on  Ch.  Govt.  pp. 

from  its  nature  might  seem  natural,  199,204. 

expired  on  their  return  to  resume  their  3)     Lord  Barrington's  Theol.  Wks. 

attendance  on  him.'     See  also  in  Lord  vol.  ii.  p.  9. 


CHAP.  II.]  ORDER    OF    MINISTERS.  61 

to  the  intent  that  they  might  be  the  better  acquainted  with 
1  all  that  Jesus  began  both  to  do  and  teach,'  until  the  day  in 
which  he  was  taken  up,  after  that  he,  through  the  Holy 
Ghost,  had  given  commandments  unto  the  apostles  whom  he 
had  chosen.'1  They  thus  'continued  with  him  in  his  temp- 
tations.'2 And  most  certain  it  is,  that  there  is  nothing  in  this 
commission  having  the  remotest  bearing  upon  the  institution 
of  three  orders  of  ministers ;  or  upon  the  appointment  of 
these  twelve  as  an  order  of  prelates,  who  were  as  such  to 
ordain,  govern,  and  direct  two  other  orders  under  their  juris- 
diction. In  proof  of  this,  we  need  only  refer  to  the  endless 
variations  of  opinion  among  those,  who  have  attempted  to 
make  out,  from  this  commission,  the  three  orders ;  many  being 
of  opinion,  that,  until  Christ's  death,  the  apostles  were  pres- 
byters, and  Christ  alone  bishop  or  prelate  ;  others,  that  during 
the  same  period  the  apostles  were  prelates;  others  again 
affirming,  that  the  apostles  were  never  commissioned  till  after 
Christ's  resurrection ;  and  others  being  of  opinion,  that,  in 
every  period,  the  apostles  were  extraordinary  officers,  and 
could  have  no  successors  in  the  ministry  of  the  church.3 
Bishop  Sherlock,  indeed,  thinks  he  finds  these  three  orders 
enumerated  in  the  closing  verses  of  this  commission,4  the 
apostles  being  referred  to  in  one  place,  (Matt.  11 :  v.  40,)  and 
the  other  orders  under  the  title  of  prophets,5  (v.  41.)  But. 
nothing  can  be  wilder,  or  more  gratuitous,  than  such  baseless 
assumptions.  For  if  we  will  be  guided  by  the  previous 
context,  as  universally  explained,  the  reference  must  be  made 
to  all  christians  indifferently,  while  no  sanction  whatever 
can  be  found  for  interpreting  the  word  prophet  as  meaning 
the  two  orders  of  presbyter  and  deacon,  in  distinction  from 
that  of  prelates,  or  for  applying  the  latter  portion  of  this  pas- 
sage (v.  41)  in  any  other  sense  than  as  explanatory  of  the 
preceding,  (v.  40.) 

The  truth  in  the  case,  then,  is  this,  that,  as  our  Lord 
approached  the  termination  of  his  ministry  on  earth,  he 
thought  it  necessary  to  prepare  the  way  for  those  scenes 
which  were  to  transpire  in  Jerusalem,  and  therefore  sent 
forth  the  twelve,  that  the  eyes  of  all  might  be  directed  to 

1 )  See  Acts,  1 :  12.  See  also  me  ;  and  he  that  receiveth  me,  receiv- 
ibid,  v.  21,  22 ;  and  Luke,  22  :  28.  eth  him  that  sent  me. 

2)  See  Lord  Barrington's  Wks.  He  that  receiveth  a  prophet  in  the 
vol.  ii.  pp.  6,  7.  name   of  a  prophet,   shall   receive  a 

3)  See  the  authorities  for  these  prophet's  reward  ;  and  he  that  receiv- 
several  views  in  Lect.  on  Apost.  Succ.  eth  a  righteous  man  in  the  name  oi  a 
p.  149.     Lect.  vi.  Note  A.  righteous  man,  shall  receive  a  righteous 

4)  Matt.  10:  40,  41.  man's  reward. 

He   that  receiveth   you,  receiveth  5)  Sherlock's  Wks.  vol.  m.  p.  281. 


62 


CHRIST    SENT    OUT    ONLY    ONE 


[book  i. 


him  as  the  angel  of  the  covenant.  Being  moved  also  with 
pity,  when  he  saw  how  '  the  harvest  truly  was  great,  and  ihe 
laborers  so  few,'  he  commissioned  seventy  other  disciples  to 
go  forth  on  a  similar  errand  of  divine  mercy. 

But  it  is  most  confidently  believed  by  most  prelatists,  that 
in  these  seventy  we  have  a  definite  order  of  ministers,  essen- 
tially distinct  from  the  twelve,  both  in  respect  to  commission 
and  to  powers  ;  and  that  in  connexion  with  Christ,  considered 
as  embodying  the  order  of  prelates,  we  have  the  ever-to-be 
venerated  three  orders  of  the  prelatic  hierarchy.1  Now,  in 
order  at  once  to  bring  this  matter  to  the  test,  we  will  here 
present  the  respective  commissions  of  the  twelve,  and  of  the 
seventy,  as  they  have  been  harmonized  by  a  rigid  defender 
of  the  prelacy. 


The  Commission  of  the 
Twelve. 

Matt.  21 :  1.    Mark,  6  :  7-14. 
Luke,  9:  1-7. 

Then  he  called  his  twelve 
disciples  together,  and  gave 
them  power  and  authority 
over  all  devils.  And  when 
he  had  called  unto  him  his 
twelve  disciples,  he  gave  them 
power  against  unclean  spirits, 
to  cast  them  out,  and  to  heal 
all  manner  of  sickness,  and  all 
manner  of  disease.  These 
twelve  Jesus  sent  forth  by  two 
and  two  to  preach  the  king- 
dom of  God,  and  to  heal  the 
sick ;  and  commanded  them, 
saying,  Go  not  into  the  way 
of  the  Gentiles,  and  into  any 
city  of  the  Samaritans  enter 
ye  not :  But  go  rather  to  the 
lost  sheep  of  the  house  of 
Israel,  and  as  ye  go,  preach, 


The   Commission  of  the 
Seventy. 

Luke,  10  :  1-17. 

After  these  things  the  Lord 
appointed  other  seventy  also, 
and  sent  them  two  and  two 
before  his  face  into  every  city 
and  place,  whither  he  himself 
would  come.  Therefore  said 
he  unto  them,  the  harvest  truly 
is  great,  but  the  laborers  are 
few :  pray  ye  therefore  ihe 
Lord  of  the  harvest,  that  he 
would  send  forth  laborers  into 
the  harvest.  Go  your  ways  : 
behold  I  send  you  forth  as 
lambs  among  wolves.  Carry 
neither  purse,  nor  scrip,  nor 
shoes :  and  salute  no  man  by 
the  way.  And  into  whatso- 
ever house  ye  enter,  first  say, 
Peace  be  unto  this  house. 
And  if  the  Son  of  peace  be 


1)  'It  cannot  be  denied,'  says  larmine  Pe  Clericis,  cap.  14,  'bishops 
Heylin,  '  but  that  the  apostles  were  succeed  the  apostles,  the  priests  or 
superior  to  these  seventy,  both  in  presbyters  come  in  place  of  the  disci- 
place  and  power.'  Hist,  of  Episcop.  pies.'  See  also  Willet's  Synopsis, 
Part  i.  cap.  i.  sect.  9.     See  also   Bel-  Pap.  p.  236. 


CHAP.  II.] 


ORDER    OF    MINISTERS. 


63 


saying,  The  kingdom  of  hea- 
ven is  at  hand  Heal  the  sick, 
cleanse  the  lepers,  raise  the 
dead,  cast  out  devils :  freely 
ye  have  received,  freely  give. 
And  he  commanded  that  they 
should  take  nothing  for  their 
journey,  save  a  staff' only ;  and 
he  said  unto  them,  provide 
neither  gold,  nor  silver,  nor 
brass  in  your  purses,  nor  scrip 
for  your  journey ;  neither  two 
coats,  neither  shoes,  but  be 
shod  with  sandals ;  nor  yet 
staves,  neither  bread,  for  the 
workman  is  worthy  of  his 
meat.  And  he  said  unto  them, 
into  whatsoever  city  or  town 
ye  shall  enter,  inquire  who  in 
it  is  worthy,  and  whatsoever 
house  ye  enter  into  there  abide, 
till  ye  go  thence,  and  when  ye 
come  into  an  house,  salute  it, 
and  if  the  house  be  worthy, 
let  your  peace  come  upon  it : 
but  if  it  be  not  worthy,  let 
your  peace  return  unto  you; 
and  whosoever  shall  not  re- 
ceive you,  nor  hear  your  words, 
when  ye  depart  out  of  that 
house  or  city,  shake  off  the 
dust  of  your  feet,  the  very  dust 
from  under  your  feet,  for  a 
testimony  against  them.  Be- 
hold, I  send  you  forth  as  sheep 
in  the  midst  of  wolves  ;  be  ye 
therefore  wise  as  serpents  and 
harmless  as  doves,  &c. 


there,  your  peace  shall  rest 
upon  it ;  if  not,  it  shall  turn 
to  you  again.  And  in  the 
same  house  remain,  eating 
and  drinking  such  things  as 
they  give ;  for  the  laborer  is 
worthy  of  his  hire.  Go  not 
from  house  to  house.  And 
into  whatsoever  city  ye  enter, 
and  they  receive  you,  eat  such 
things  as  are  set  before  you. 
And  heal  the  sick  that  are 
therein,  and  say  unto  them, 
the  kingdom  of  God  is  come 
nigh  unto  you,  &c. 


Such,  then,  are  the  respective  commissions  of  the  twelve 
and  the  seventy.  Now,  that  '  the  seventy  were  distinct  from 
and  inferior  to  the  twelve'  is,  it  is  argued,  'evident.'1  But 
in  what  were  they  thus  distinct  and  inferior  ?  Not,  we  an- 
swer, in  name  or  title.     The  twelve,  we  have  seen,  were  only 


1)    Brokesby's  Hist,  of  the  Govt,  of  the  Prim.  Ch.     Lond.  1712.    p.  9. 


64  CHRIST    SENT    OUT    ONLY    ONE  [BOOK  I. 

termed  apostles  by  anticipation  —  in  a  general  sense  —  and 
that  too,  rarely,  since  they  are  most  frequently,  and  even  sub- 
sequently to  this  event,  styled  disciples.  Besides,  these  indi- 
viduals are  denominated  '•other  seventy,'  and  were  therefore 
of  the  same  order  as  the  twelve,  whom  Christ  had  named 
apostles.  In  the  original  language  it  is  said  Christ,  aneareiksv, 
sent  forth  the  seventy,  (Luke  x.  1,)  that  is,  he  made  them 
apostles,  the  term  apostle  coming  from  the  word  anoonUn,  to 
send  forth.  And  as  ihe  twelve  were  called  apostles,  because 
sent  forth  by  Christ,  so  also  were  the  seventy  apostles,  since 
they  also  were  sent  forth  by  Christ.1  Neither  did  the  seventy 
differ  from  the  twelve  in  regard  to  their  appointment.  All 
priests  and  deacons,  according  to  the  prelatic  theory,  are  or- 
dained by  prelates.  But  in  this  case,  both  the  twelve  and 
the  seventy  were  sent  forth  by  the  immediate  and  superior 
call  of  Christ  himself.  Thus  it  is  expressly  said,  '  the  Lord 
appointed  other  seventy  also,'  or  gave  them  an  appointment 
similar  to  that  of  the  twelve.  It  is  pretended,  that  before  or- 
daining the  twelve  Christ  spent  the  night  in  prayer.  But  in 
the  first  place,  what,  connection  had  a  customary  practice  with 
this  extraordinary  act?  (See  Mark,  1 :  35.)  And  then,  in 
the  second  place,  are  we  not  taught,  even  by  Bishop  Bcver- 
idge,  that  the  apostles  were  never  ordained  during  our 
Saviour's  life?2  And  that  the  commission  of  the  seventy 
was  the  same  as  that  of  the  twelve  is  distinctly  asserted  by 
Hooker,  who  says,  their  'commission  to  preach  and  baptize 
was  the  same  which  the  apostles  had.'3  The  seventy  did 
not  differ,  therefore,  from  the  twelve  in  the  mission,  or  duties, 
to  which  they  were  appointed.  They,  like  the  twelve,  were 
to  precede  the  Messiah  wherever  he  was  to  come.  They 
also  were  sent  forth  to  preach.  They  also  were  commission- 
ed to  exercise  their  office  through  the  same  extent  of  territory. 
Neither  were  the  seventy  different  from  the  twelve  in  the 
power  communicated  to  them,  since  both  were  empowered 
with  authority  to  work  miracles,  as  the  delegated  heralds,  or 
ambassadors,  of  the  Lord  from  heaven.  (Luke,  10  :  16,  17  ; 
6  :  10.) 4  In  short,  the  nature,  object,  and  end  of  the  commis- 
sion of  the  seventy,  were  the  same  with  those  given  to  the 
twelve,  llie  wording  in  both  cases  being  almost  identical. 
The  qualifications  of  both  also  were  the  same,  both  being 
supernatural  and  miraculous.     The  Beventy  were  also  sent 

1)  Compnri-  Matt.  10:   5, 16,  and  given  them,  (the  seventy,)  are  exactly 
Luke,  10:  3,  and  Luke,  6:  13.  the  same  with  those  which  had  been 

2)  Wks.  vol.  ii.  p.  112.  before  given  to   the   apostles.'     Lord 

3)  Eecl.  Polity,  B.  v.  §  77.  Barrington's   Wks.  vol.  i.  p.  8.     See 

4)  '  The  instructions  and  powers  the  whole  passage. 


CHAP.  II.]  ORDER    OF    MINISTERS.  65 

forth  with  no  subordination  to  the  twelve  ;x  without  any  ap- 
parent connection  with  them ;  and  certainly  without  being 
made  dependent  upon  them  either  for  authority  or  direction. 
That  the  apostles  were  destined  to  a  higher  and  permanent 
office  in  Christ's  established  kingdom  is  true ;  but  of  such 
preeminence,  or  of  their  apostolic  office  in  its  formal,  dis- 
tinctive, and  permanent  character,  there  is  nothing  to  be 
found  in  this  previous  mission  —  which  was  temporary,  pre- 
paratory, and  probationary.  If,  therefore,  it  is  sufficient  to 
identify  two  classes  of  officers,  that  they  are  employed  on  a 
temporary  mission  ;  that  they  are  called  by  the  same  name ; 
that  they  receive  the  same  appointment,  and  from  the  same 
hands  ;  that  they  are  deputed  to  the  same  work,  with  equal 
authority  and  powers ;  then,  however  preeminent  one  class 
may  have  become  by  a  future  and  more  exalted  elevation  — 
the  seventy  and  the  twelve  disciples,  were,  during  our 
Lord's  ministry,  of  the  same  order  and  dignity ;  that  is,  they 
were  both  presbyters.3 

The  apostles  during  our  Saviour's  lifetime,  were,  says 
bishop  Beveridge,  '  answerable  to  the  priests  of  the  second 
order,' 3  and  yet,  he  adds,  '  they  had  no  consecration.' 4  The 
doctrine  of  the  church  has  certainly  been,  that  presbyters 
succeed  to  the  apostles.  Thus  Dr.  Willet5  declares,  '  that 
priests  succeed  in  the  place  of  the  apostles  is  evident  out  of 
their  own  decrees,  distinct.  68,  c.  5.'  The  apostles,  therefore, 
during  our  Lord's  ministry  were  presbyters  only,  and  not 
prelates,  and  since  the  seventy  were  in  all  essential  respects 
identified  with  them,  there  was  during  this  period  but  one 
order  of  ministers  in  the  church. 

In  confirmation  of  this  judgment,  we  beg  leave  to  present 
to  the  attentive  consideration  of  our  readers,  the  opin- 
ion of  Dr.  Whitby,  who  is  renowned  amongst  the  hosts  of 
the  prelatists.  '  Whereas,'  says  he,  '  some  compare  the  bish- 
ops to  the  apostles,  the  seventy  to  the  presbyters  of  the 
church  ;  and  thence  conclude  that  divers  orders  of  the  minis- 
try were  instituted  by  Christ  himself;  it  must  be  granted 
that  the  ancients  did  believe  these  two  to  be  divers  orders, 
and  that  those  of  the  seventy  were  inferior  to  the  order  of  the 
apostles ;  and  sometimes  they  make  the  comparison  here 
mentioned.     But  then  it  must  be  also  granted,  that  this  com- 

1)  The  seventy  are  twice  named  vol.  i.  p.  153.  Medley  on  Episcop.  p. 
in  Luke  10,  and  nowhere  else  in  the  24.  Laud  on  Lit.  and  Episcop.  p.  237. 
New  Testament.  3)  Wks.  vol.  ii.  p.  112. 

2)  See  Potter  on  Ch.  Govt.  p.  75.  4    Ibid. 

Hinds's  Rise  and  Progress  of  Christ.  5)  Syn.  Pap.  p.  273 

9 


66  THE    TWELVE    AND    SEVENTY    TEMPORARY.       [BOOK  I. 

parison  will  not  strictly  hold;  for  the  seventy  received  not 
their  mission  as  presbyters  do,  from  bishops,  but  immedi- 
ately from  their  Lord  Christ,  as  well  as  the  apostles;  and  in 
their  first  mission  were  plainly  sent  on  the  same  errand,  and 
with  the  same  power,  and  it  is  obviously  observable  (says 
another)  in  the  evangelical  records,  that  the  christian  church 
was  not,  could  not  be  founded  until  our  Lord  was  risen,  see- 
ing it  was  to  be  founded  on  his  resurrection.  Our  Martyr 
Cyprian  (as  appears  from  his  reasonings  on  divers  occasions) 
seems  very  well  to  have  known  and  very  distinctly  to  have 
observed,  that  the  apostles  themselves  got  not  their  commis- 
sion to  be  governors  of  the  christian  church  till  after  the  res- 
urrection. And  no  wonder,  for  this,  their  commission  is  most 
observably  recorded,  John  20:  23.  No  such  thing  is  any 
where  recorded  concerning  the  seventy.  Nothing  more  certain 
than  that  that  commission,  which  is  recorded  Luke  10,  did 
constitute  them  only  temporary  missionaries,  and  that  for  an 
errand  which  could  not  possibly  be  more  than  temporary. 
That  commission  contains  in  its  own  bosom  clear  evidences 
that  it  did  not  install  them  into  any  standing  office  at  all, 
much  less  in  any  standing  office  in  the  christian  church, 
which  was  not  yet  in  being  when  they  got  it.  Could  that 
commission  which  is  recorded  Luke  10,  any  more  constitute 
the  seventy  standing  officers  of  the  christian  church,  than  the 
like  commission  recorded  Matt.  10,  could  constitute  the  twelve 
such  standing  officers  ?  But  it  is  manifest  that  the  commis- 
sion recorded  Matt.  10,  did  not  constitute  the  twelve,  governors 
of  the  christian  church ;  otherwise,  what  need  of  a  new  com- 
mission to  that  purpose  after  the  resurrection  ?  Presumable, 
therefore,  it  is,  that  St.  Cyprian  did  not  at  all  believe  that  the 
seventy  had  any  successors,  office-bearers  in  the  christian 
church,  seeing  it  is  so  observable  that  they  themselves  received 
no  commission  to  be  such  office-bearers.' 

Even,  however,  were  it  granted,  that  in  the  twelve  and  the 
seventy  disciples  we  have  two  distinct  orders  of  ministers,  the 
theory  of  the  prelacy  is  still  in  want  of  a  third  rank,  in  order 
to  complete  its  hierarchy  ;  and  for  this  order  we  are  referred 
to  our  blessed  Lord,  who  is  denominated  the  high-priest  of 
our  profession.  Now  were  we  to  allow  that,  while  on  earth, 
our  Lord  ministerially  represented  the  first  or  highesl  order 
of  ministers,  and  that  he  was  therefore  the  first  prelate;  ((Mild 
we  for  a  moment  overlook  the  inexcusable  temerity  with 
which  a  supposition,  so  derogatory  to  our  Lord's  character, 
so  blasphemous  in  its  tendency  and  spirit,  and  so  repugnant 
to    the  ineffable  and  unapproachable  dignity  of  his  glorious 


CHAP.  II.]        CHRIST  THE  ONLY  PRELATE.  67 

nature  is  entertained ;  of  what  possible  advantage  would  it 
be  to  the  cause  of  prelacy  ?  For  not  only  are  we  instructed 
that  Christ  is  '  the  apostle  and  high  priest  of  our  profession ; ' 
we  are  also  informed,  that,  in  this  office,  he  can  have  no  pos- 
sible successors,  nor  any  partners  in  his  work,  character,  and 
mediation.  He  is,  we  are  assuredly  told,  '  a  priest  for  ever, 
after  the  order  of  Melchizedec,  and  ever  liveth,'  as  such,  '  to 
make  intercession  for  us.'  Like  Melchizedec,  Christ  neither 
succceeded  unto  any  other  in  his  office  of  kingly  priesthood, 
nor  is  he  capable  of  being  succeeded  in  his  royal  honors. 
Like  him,  who  was  his  chosen  type,  he  '  continueth  ever,  in 
his  unchangeable  priesthood,  being  made  a  priest,  not  after 
the  law  of  a  carnal  commandment,  but  after  the  power  of  an 
endless  life.'  As  our  great  high-priest,  Christ  stands  singly 
and  alone,  the  first  and  the  last  of  his  order,  the  beginning 
and  the  end,  superior  to  Aaron,  to  Levi,  and  to  Abraham.1 
He  is  '  the  one  mediator  between  God  and  man,'  and  '  the 
only  advocate  with  the  Father,'  the  Lamb,  who  is  in  the  midst 
of  the  throne,  of  whose  kingdom,  dominion,  and  overruling 
presidency,  as  the  head  of  his  church,  there  shall  be  no  end. 
From  this  very  argument,  therefore,  and  the  consideration  of  the 
prelacy  of  Christ,  we  are  conclusively  taught  that  such  an  order 
as  that  of  prelates  neither  can,  nor  ought  to  exist  in  any  church 
pretending  to  be  christian.  '  One  is  our  master,  even  Christ.' 
He  alone  is  our  prelate,  our  pope,  our  supreme  and  ever-liv- 
ing head.  The  prelatic  theory  is  founded  upon  the  dethrone- 
ment of  Christ  from  his  priestly  office ;  and  the  abjuration  of 
the  infinite  merit  of  his  sacrifice  and  intercession,  as  eternally 
presented  before  God  in  the  courts  of  heaven,  for  the  uninter- 
rupted continuation  of  the  happiness  and  glory  of  his  people.2 
To  this  one  error,  the  offspring  of  this  prelatic  hypothesis, 
begotten  by  vanity  and  pride,  and  the  lust  of  domination,  is  to 
be  traced  that  prime  element  in  all  the  systems  of  anti-chris- 
tian  superstition  and  corruption,  the  priestly  character  of  the 
gospel  ministry,  and  the  consequent  doctrines  of  altars,  and 
sacrifices,  and  mysteries,  and  all  the  profane  idolatries  by 
which  men  have  departed  from  the  faith.3  Christ  is  first 
made  one  link  in  the  chain  of  succession  from"  Aaron  to  Pe- 

1)  Heb.  VII.  Dr.  Hawkins  on  the  '  The  Lord  hath  sworn,  and  will  notre- 
Hist.  Script,  of  the  Old  Test.  p.  15G.  pent,  Thou  art  a  priest  after  the  order 

2)  '  No  one  indeed  can  deny,' says  of  Melchizedec'  And  four  times  does 
Dr.  Chapman,  in  his  sermons  to  Pres-  the  apostle  to  the  Hebrews  reiterate 
byterians,  vol.  i.  p.  148, 'the  perpetual  the  declaration.' 

tenure  by  which  Jesus  is  sustained  as  3)  Dr    Hawkins,  in  his  Discour- 

the  grand  hierarchy  of  the  christian     ses  on  the  Historical  Scriptures  of  the 
church.    According  to   the  psalmist,     Old   Testament,   (p.   156,)  says   that, 


68  IMPIETY    OF    THE  [BOOK  I. 

ter,  conveying  down,  in  holy  orders,  absolute  contact  with 
the  God  of  all  the  earth.' x  Prelates,  and  through  them  all  the 
other  orders,  are  then  made  successors  to  Christ  in  this  office, 
as  links  in  the  unbroken  chain  from  Christ  to  the  end  of  time. 
As  his  ministers,  or  stewards,  or  ambassadors,  or  lieutenants 
in  his  kingdom  upon  earth,  they  are  also  made  his  vicege- 
rents in  all  his  three  offices  as  Priest,  Prophet,  and  King. 
Christ  is  thus  displaced  and  dethroned  by  his  own  ministers, 
and  is  to  all  practical  purposes  as  good  as  annihilated.  We 
are,  therefore,  unblushingly  required,  as  Dr.  Hickes  affirms,  by 
'  the  doctrine  of  the  catholic  church,'  to  honor  '  the  bishop  as 
the  high-priest  representing  God,  representing  God  as  a 
prince  and  Christ  as  a  priest,'  '  and  therefore  we  ought  to  re- 
gard the  bishop  as  God!'2  "Well  might  John  Walker  say, 
that  this  whole  theory  is,  indeed,  a  fiction  so  monstrously  ab- 
surd, that  it  might  excite  laughter  if  it  were  not  so  monstrous- 
ly profane,  that  indignation  rather  must  predominate  in  the 
christian  who  considers  it. 3 

We  are,  therefore,  driven  to  the  conclusion,  that,  during  our 
Lord's  manifestation  upon  earth,  as  our  Emmanuel,  nothing 
like  this  triple  order  of  distinctly  classified  ministers,  with 
their  subordinated  dignities  and  functions,  was  to  be  found 
in  the  administration  of  the  church.  And  that  prelatists 
should  have  ventured  to  assert  the  contrary,4  and  to  insist 
upon  it  so  strenuously  as  they  do,  would  indeed  be  amazing, 
had  we  not  been  already  admonished  of  the  fact,  that  boldness 
of  assertion  is  found  to  be  generally  in  exact  proportion  to 
the  weakness  of  the  proof  by  which  it  is  sustained.  Either 
Christ  was  himself  an  order  in  the  priesthood,  or  he  was  not. 
If  he  was  not,  as  we  believe,  then,  during  his  ministry,  there 
was  but  one  class  of  ministers  employed  in  executing  the 
purposes  of  their  temporary  commission,  and  thus  is  the  prin- 
ciple of  presbyterian  parity  established,  and  the  presbyterian 

'  mistaking  the  means  for  the  end,  the  lib.  ii.  c.2.  §11.  In  Nolan's  Cath.  Char, 

shadow  for  the  substance,  is  the  com-  of  Christ,  pp.  231-237. 
mon  error  of  weak  and  ignorant  men.  3)  See  also  the  strong  language 

And  the  correction  of  this  error  is  one  of  the  archbishop  of  Cashel,  in  charge 

of  the  remarkable  purposes  to  which  to  the  clergy  of  his  Diocese,  Dublin, 

the  preaching  of  the  gospel  before  the  1S22,  p.  20.      Also  of  the  bishop   of 

law  is  applied  by  St.  Paul  himself.'  Chester,  in  the  Lond.  Chr.  Obs.  Dec. 

1)  The  Church,thc  Bishop,  or  Ko-  1841,  page  761.  The  Churchman's 
rah.  Two  sermons  by  Frederick  A.  Monthly  Rev.  1841,  p.  274,  2.  &c 
Glover,  Lond.  1S38,  p.' 72-7  I.  In  Dr.  Nolan's  Cath.  Char,  of  Christ,  p.  203. 
Brown  on  Civil  Obedience,  p.  43,  Essays  on  the  Church;  p.  331.  Pow- 
Supplement,  notes.  ell     on    Tradition,    Supplement,    pp. 

2)  Ignat.  ad   Ephes.  c.  6.  and  ad  6,  7,  &c. 

Smyrn.  c.  9.     Hicke's,  vol.  ii.  p.  22-24,  4)  This   was  the  position  taken 

Conf.  ii.  Beveridge  Can.  Apost.  Vind.     by  bishop  Hobart  and  others,  in  the 


CHAP.  II.]  THEORY  OF  THE  PRELACY.  69 

shown  to  be  the  true  and  only  succession  that  can  exist.  If, 
however,  Christ  must  be  regarded  as  an  order  of  the  ministry, 
then  during  his  life  there  was  but  one  other  ;  and  ever  since  that 
time,  there  must  be,  on  the  prelatic  theory,  at  least  four  orders, 
and  not  three.  So  that  in  either  case,  to  substantiate  the  all- 
important  claims  of  prelates,  Christ  must  be  deposed  from  his 
office,  and  dethroned  from  his  kingly  and  everlasting  throne. * 

Essays  on  Episcopacy  in  the  Albany  1)  See  the  argument  very  conclu- 

Centinel,  N.   Y.  1806,  and  quoted  in     sively  presented  in  Dr.  Mason's  Wks. 
Dr.  Mason's  Wks.  vol.  iii.p.  86.     Also     vol.  iii.  p.  87,  &c. 
by  Dr.  Chapman  in  his  writings,  and 
by  the  present  episcopal  writers  gen- 
erally. 


CHAPTER   III. 


THE  CLAIMS  OF  PRESBYTERY  TO  THE  TRUE  APOSTOLICAL  OR 
MINISTERIAL  SUCCESSION,  SUSTAINED  BY  THE  CHARAC- 
TER AND  CONDITION  OF  THE  CHURCH  WHEN  OUR 
LORD  ASCENDED  UP  INTO  HEAVEN. 


§  1.  The  apostles  were  not  commissioned  before  the  delivery 
of  the  final  commission  by  our  ascending  Saviour,  with  an 
examination  of  John,  20 :  21. 

We  are  now  brought  to  that  period  when  the  christian 
church  was  openly  and  permanently  established,  upon  the 
corner-stone  of  Christ's  death,  resurrection,  and  ever-living 
power,  as  Head  over  all  things  to  his  church.  We  are, 
therefore,  to  inquire  what  charter,  commission,  or  law,  the 
inaugurated  Redeemer,  the  Counsellor  and  Legislator  of  his 
church,  has  left  behind  him,  for  its  guidance  and  instruction. 
Nor  are  we  long  in  finding  our  way  to  that  last,  solemn, 
authoritative,  and  full  commission,  delivered  by  our  Lord  just 
before  ascending  up  into  heaven.  It  has,  indeed,  been  sup- 
posed by  some,  that  the  apostles  were  consecrated  to  their  high 
function  on  the  evening  of  the  day  after  Christ's  ascension, 
when  he  told  them,  'as  my  Father  hath  sent  me,  so  I  send 
you,'  (John,  20:  21,)  and  that  then  they  received  their  pecu- 
liar prelatical  authority.  But  nothing  can  be  more  gratui- 
tous and  vain  than  such  a  supposition.  It  appears  that  on 
this  occasion,  as  Mr.  Scott  well  explains  the  passage,  '  the 
apostles  and  other  disciples  met  together,  in  some  room 
which  they  had  procured  ;  probably  in  order  to  join  in  prayer 
and  supplication.'1  The  evangelist  uses  the  general  term 
'disciples,'  which,  in  the  very  chapter  preceding,  (19:  31,)  is 
applied  to  Joseph  of  Ariinalliea,  and  was,  we  know, given  to 
the  seventy,  (Luke,  10.)  He  also  particularly  notices  the 
fact,  that  it  was  on  the  first  day  of  the  week,'  which  day  was 

1 )     Commentary,  in  loco. 


CHAP.  III.]  JOHN,    20:    21,     EXPLAINED.  71 

thus  early  set  apart  in  commemoration  of  Christ's  resurrec- 
tion. This  interview,  therefore,  was  not  merely  with  the 
twelve,  but  with  all  the  disciples  of  Christ ;  and  was  designed 
to  comfort  their  sorrowing  hearts,  to  inspirit  their  drooping 
faith,  and  to  impart  to  them  that  peace  they  were  previously 
led  to  expect.  Having,  therefore,  repeated  to  them  the 
assurance  of  his  peace,  Christ  'renewed  and  confirmed  to 
them,  their  apostolic  commission ;  sending  them  forth  to 
declare  his  truth  to  the  world,  and  to  be  his  ambassadors  and 
vicegerents.' x 

We  would  also  remark,  that  the  exclusive  application  of  these 
words  of  Christ  to  prelates,  is  no  less  arbitrary,  and  a  com- 
plete begging  of  the  question,  than  the  interpretation  given  to 
them  by  the  Romanists,  who  allege,  that  as  the  Father  sent 
Christ  to  offer  sacrifice  for  sin,  so  did  Christ  send  his  priests 
to  offer  the  sacrifice  of  the  mass.  Both  these  explanations, 
however,  the  prelatic  and  the  Romish,  are  perfectly  gratuitous. 

We  remark,  further,  that  the  application  of  these  words  to 
popes,  prelates,  or  to  any  christian  ministers  whatsoever,  in 
their  full  literal  wording,  so  as  to  convey  the  idea  that  they 
have  the  same  power  conveyed  to  them  by  Christ,  which  was 
conveyed  to  Christ  by  God,  is  gross  impiety,  and  blasphemous 
presumption.  The  supposition  is  impossible  in  the  very 
nature  of  things.  The  human  nature  of  Christ  never  existed 
as  a  distinct  person.  His  mediatorial  power  was  not  com- 
mitted to  the  human  nature  of  Christ,  but  to  the  human 
and  divine  natures  as  together  constituting  one  person.  It 
was  as  a  divine  person,  and  not  merely  as  human,  Christ  had 
all  power  given  to  Him,  and  was  able  to  forgive  sins  and  to 
exercise  all  other  authority.  It  was,  therefore,  as  God  and 
man  in  one  person  the  Father  sent  the  Son.  The  persons 
here  addressed,  then,  be  they  who  they  may,  could  not  be 
sent  with  the  same  authority  or  in  the  same  manner  as  Christ 
was  sent  by  God.  The  supposition  lands  us  in  open  heresy 
or  blasphemy,  and  the  words  therefore  must  be  understood  as 
we  have  explained  them,  as  referring  only  to  the  fact,  that  as 
Christ  was  sent  by  the  Father  and  authorized  by  Him,  so 
were  they  and  all  true  ministers  sent  by  Christ,  and  authorized 
by  Him  to  preach  his  gospel,  and  to  conduct  the  affairs  of  his 
kingdom. 

But  it  is  added,  that '  when  Christ  had  said  this,  he  breathed 
on  them,  and  said,  receive  ye  the  Holy  Ghost.'  These  words, 
however,  can  only  be  understood  prophetically.     As  Christ 

1)     Scott,  ibjd. 


72  John  20:  21,  explained.  [book  i. 

now  breathed  upon  ihem,  so  certainly  were  they  to  receive 
the  gift  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  which  should  come  upon  them  as 
the  sound  of  a  mighty  rushing  wind.  So  it  is  expressed  by 
Luke,  who  says,  'behold  I  send  the  promise  of  my  Father 
upon  you,  —  (not,  indeed,  at  this  time,  but  before  long  and 
most  certainly,)  —  tarry  ye,  therefore,  in  the  city  of  Jerusa- 
lem, until  ye  are  endowed  with  this  power  from  on  high.' x 
He  also  informs  us,  that  our  Saviour,  just  before  his  ascen- 
sion, ordered  them  '  not  to  depart  from  Jerusalem,  but  wait 
for  the  promise  of  the  Father,  which,  saith  he,  ye  have  heard 
of  me.'2  The  apostle  John,  also,  declares  the  same  truth, 
when  he  records  our  Saviour's  discourse  at  Capernaum ;  '  but 
this  spake  he  of  the  Spirit,  which  they  that  believe  in  him 
should  receive;  for  the  Holy  Ghost  was  not  yet  given,  be- 
cause that  Jesus  was  not  yet  glorified.'3  And  thus  we  are 
further  informed,  '  that  Christ  being  exalted  at  the  right  hand 
of  God,  and  having  received  of  the  Father  the  promise  of 
the  Holy  Ghost,  he  hath  shed  forth  this  which  ye  see  and 
hear,' 4  and  by  which,  for  the  first  time,  they  were  empowered 
to  act  as  his  inspired  apostles.5  And  hence  it  will  be  ob- 
served, that  the  promise  here  given  is  so  worded,  as  to  be 
fully  comprehended  in  that  fulfilment.  Neither  is  any  gener- 
al promise  annexed,  such  as  forms  so  conspicuous  a  feature 
in  the  great  commission ;  as  if  to  show  most  clearly,  that  the 
latter  alone  was  to  be  looked  upon  as  the  full,  final,  and  per- 
petual commission  of  the  ministry,  for  which  Christ's  privi- 
leged disciples  were  now  prepared.  Thus  when  Christ 
addressed  Peter  in  the  name  of  all  the  apostles,  saying,  '  I 
will  give  unto  thee  the  keys  of  the  kingdom  of  heaven,'  he 
says,  '  not  I  now  give,  but  I  will  give.'  Now  that  future 
commission,  was  the  final  commission  which  was  given  in 
His  last  conversation  with  them  upon  earth.  6 

§  2.     The  commissions,  recorded  in  the  gospels  of  Matthew 
mid  of  John,  not  diffen nl. 

It  has  also  been  attempted  to  be  shown,  that  the  commis- 
sions, as  recorded  by  Matthew  and  by  John,  are  different,  the 
latter  containing  in  it  the  delegation  of  the  powers  of  gov- 

1)  Luke,  21  .  19.  ii.  pp.  11.  12,   13,69,  92.     Also  Nean- 

2)  Acts,  1 :  4,  5,  8.  ders  Hist,  of  the  Plant,  of  the  Chr.  Ch. 

3)  John,  n  by  the  Ap.  vol.  i.  pp.  3,  B,  &c. 

4)  Acts, 2 :  33, and  5 :  30 - 80.  See  •', )  So  speaks  bishop  Burgess  in 
Lord  Barrington's  Theol.  Wks.  vol.  i.  his  Tracts  on  Origin  and  Indep.  of  the 
pp.  15,  10,  137,  207,  ami  vol.  ii.  p.  10.  Anc.  Brit.  Ch.  p.  L3.     Lond.  1815, 

5)  See  Barrington's  Theol.  Wks. 


CHAP.  III.]  JOHN,    20  :    21,    EXPLAINED.  73 

emment  or  jurisdiction,  in  the  words,  '  As  my  Father  hath 
sent  me  even  so  send  I  you.'  But  to  this  it  may  be  replied, 
that  as  the  gospel  by  Matthew  was  originally  designed  for  a 
different  class  of  christians  than  that  of  the  apostle  John,  and 
was  in  circulation  long  before  it,  whatever  ministers  were 
appointed  in  their  churches  must  have  been  set  apart  by  virtue 
of  this  commission,  as  recorded  by  Matthew.  If,  then,  the 
other  contains  provision  for  a  different  order  of  ministers, 
there  must  have  existed  different  forms  of  polity  under  apos- 
tolic sanction.  Besides,  this  theory,  as  advanced  by  Mr. 
Learning  and  others,  is  suicidal  and  absurd.  It  is  suicidal, 
for,  while  this  passage  does  speak  of  the  Father  sending 
Christ,  and  of  Christ  sending  those  whom  he  addressed,  it 
does  not  say  a  word  about  their  sending  any  one  else,  or  of  their 
having  any  authority  to  do  so.  And  if  it  is  urged,  that  this 
power  must  be  implied,  because  necessary,  this  we  grant ;  but 
then  this  is  as  perfectly  true  of  the  promise  given  in  Matthew, 
which  is  much  more  full  and  explicit,  and  must,  on  the  same 
principle,  be  allowed  to  convey,  in  perpetuity,  to  all  acting 
under  that  commission,  its  plenary  powers  ;  and  since  this 
was  avowedly  given,  to  the  seventy,  or  some  of  them,  as 
well  as  to  the  twelve,  it  necessarily  conveys  to  presbyters  the 
whole  powers  of  the  ministerial  office. 

This  theory  is  also  absurd,  since  it  supposes  the  apostles 
to  have  received  two  separate  commissions,  of  different  im- 
port and  authority,  and  that  too  after  they  had  gone  through 
the  three  gradations  of  ministerial  rank,  and  were,  as  prelat- 
ists  teach,  already  prelates.  On  this  ground  we  must  believe, 
that  they  were  now  consecrated  arch-prelates,  and  afterwards 
popes.  This  absurdity  will  further  appear  from  hence,  that 
the  commission  in  John,  which  contains,  as  is  said,  the  high- 
est authority,1  was  given,  in  the  order  of  time,  before  the 
other,  which  nevertheless  conveys  only  a  subordinate  author- 
ity, and  thus,  according  to  this  theory,  the  twelve,  after  having 
been  ordained  prelates,  were  again  commissioned,  first,  as 
bishops,  and  then,  to  consummate  their  episcopal  ascent,  as 
presbyters.  So  that,  after  all,  according  to  this  view,  the 
presbyterate  is  the  highest  order  in  the  church,  and  the  epis- 
copate an  inferior  and  subordinate  one. 

This  promise,  therefore,  must  be  regarded  as  synonymous 
with  that  contained  in  the  general  commission,  or  as  special- 
ly designed  to  prepare  the  minds  of  the  disciples  for  its  recep- 
tion, and  to  end  with  such   an  application.     It   was  thus 

1 )  See  Paley's  Wks.  vol.  vi.  p.  91. 

10 


74  john,  20:  21,  explained.  [book  i. 

intended  to  sustain  their  faith,  hope,  and  courage,  by  the 
renewal  of  their  apostolic  appointment,  and  the  present  be- 
stowment  of  a  divine  blessing;  and  to  assure  them  of  the 
certain  fulfilment  of  the  promise,  that  the  Holy  Spirit,  the 
Comforter,  should  yet  be  given  to  them,  to  guide  them  into 
all  truth,"  and  to  fit  and  prepare  them  for  their  high  and  holy 
calling.  It  is,  therefore,  to  be  considered  as  addressed  to  the 
aposlles,  not  exclusively,  though  emphatically  ;  but  to  them, 
in  the  name  of,  and  as  representing,  the  ministers  of  the  gos- 
pel, to  the  end  of  the  world.  Such  an  interpretation  alone 
can  save  us  from  inextricable  confusion  and  palpable  absurd- 
ity.1 Nor  does  it  involve  any  real  difficulty,  since  it  will 
be  our  object  to  show,  that,  as  his  ambassadors,  every  true 
minister  represents  Christ  in  his  prophetical,  priestly,  and 
kingly  office,  in  which  he  was  sent  forth  by  God ;  and  are 
by  Him  commissioned  to  teach,  to  rule,  and  to  preside  over 
the  worship  and  ordinances  of  his  church,  and  to  administer 
its  laws  in  his  name,  by  his  authority,  and  sustained  by  his 
powerful  authentication  of  their  acts. 

§  3.     The  final  commission  delivered  by  Christ  is  the  true  and 
only  charter  of  the  christian  ministry  and  church. 

We  are  to  look,  therefore,  to  the  final  commission,  delivered 
by  our  ascending  Lord,  as  the  complete  and  permanent  char- 
ter of  the  ministry.  For,  whatever  application  be  given  to 
the  promise  already  considered ;  inasmuch  as  it  is  blasphe- 
mous to  suppose  any  human  being  can  be  as  absolutely  em- 
powered as  Christ  was  by  the  Father,2  which  the  words 
literally  might  be  made  to  declare,  the  actual  powers  to  be 
intrusted  to  the  permanent  ministers,  can  only  be  ascertained 
from  this  formal  charter.  All  the  power,  authority,  and 
jurisdiction  vested  in  the  ministry,  is  conveyed  to  them  by 
this  commission.  We  have  here  the  supreme  law  of  Christ's 
house,  as  to  the  character  and  functions  of  its  officers.  So 
that,  whatever  power  or  order  is  claimed  by  any  pretended 
successors  of  the  apostles,  not  sanctioned  by  this  charter, 
and  any  attempt  to  found  such  claims  upon  the  authority  of 
Christ,  is  a  gross  usurpation,  which  every  christian  man  is 
bound  to  disown  and  to  resist.     Every  such  imposition  is 

1)  Mr.   Benson,  in  his  Disc,  on  to  any  minister  who  does  not  possess 

the   Power  of  the  Ministry,  has  very  such  supernatural  gifts.     See  Disc.  II. 

ably  presented  an  argument  to  show,  on  this  text,  p.  2G,  &c. 
that  the   words    imply  inspiration —  2)  See  Dr.  Hawkins  on  the  Apost. 

and  are   applied   exclusively   to    the  Succ.  p.  18. 
apostles,  and   cannot  possibly  apply 


CHAP.  III.]  THE    COMMISSION    EXPLAINED.  75 

null  and  void,  and  all  efforts  to  constrain  others  to  obedience 
to  it,  is  a  treasonable  act  of  daring  rebellion  against  the  su- 
premacy of  Christ.  '  Go  and  make  disciples  of  all  nations 
is  ihe  first  foundation  of  apostolic  ordinations.'1 

In  this  commission  the  departing  Head  and  Counsellor  of 
his  church,  having  finished  his  own  ministry,  and  laid  the 
foundations  of  ihe  church,  transfers  to  others  the  duty  of  car- 
rying it  on  in  His  name,  by  His  authority,  and  through  His 
ever-living  agency  and  presence.  It  will  be  found,  therefore, 
summarily,  to  comprehend  the  laws  and  institutes  of  the 
christian  church.  After  asserting  his  own  omnipotence  and 
the  plenitude  of  his  power  and  authority,  in  consequence  of 
which  he  had  the  authority  and  right  to  commission  his  min- 
isters to  convert,  baptize,  and  instruct  the  world,  Christ  here 
lays  down,  first,  the  principle  of  increase,  or  the  law  by 
which  the  propagation  of  the  truth,  and  the  increase  and  per- 
petuity of  the  church,  should  be  secured,  and  this  is  by  the 
ministry  of  men;  — '  go  ye,  therefore,  and  teach  all  nations.' 
Christ  here  prescribes,  secondly,  the  law  of  admission  or 
initiation,  by  which,  when  thus  indoctrinated  and  prepared, 
men  should  be  received  as  members,  into  the  church,  and  this 
is  by  '  baptizing  them  in  the  name  of  ihe  Father,  and  of  the 
Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost.'  Thirdly,  we  have  here  the  law 
of  discipline,  by  which,  when  thus  initiated,  the  members  of 
the  christian  church  should  be  instructed  and  governed, '  teach- 
ing them  to  observe  all  things  whatsoever  I  have  commanded 
you.'  And,  fourthly,  we  have  in  this  commission  the  motive, 
or  encouragement,  to  perseverance  in  these  christian  efforts, 
and  this  is  the  assurance  of  Christ's  abiding  presence  and 

1)  See   Ogilby  on  Lay  Baptism,  Disc.  II.  pp.  31,  32.     Bishop  Burgess' 

N.  Y.  1842.  pp.  20,  22.     Dr.  Bowden,  Tracts,  as  above,  p.   13.  Lond.  1815. 

in  Wks.  on  Episcopacy,  vol.  ii.  p.  142.  Lectures  on  the  Acts,  by  the  Rev.  John 

Dr.  Cooke,  in  ibid,  vol.  ii.  p.  202.  Bish-  Brewster,    Rector,  &c.      Lond.  1808. 

op  Croft's  True   State  of  the  Church,  vol.  i.  p.  356. 

in  Scott's   Coll.  of  Tracts,  vol.  vii.  p.  '  Now  we  had    always   considered, 

300.     Hinds's    Rise   and    Progress   of  says  the  Churchman's  Monthly  Rev. 

Christ,  vol.  i.  p.   149.     Potter  on  Ch.  that  ministers  received  their  commis- 

Govt.  Daubeny's  Guide  to  the  Church,  sion  as  delegated  by  our  Divine  Head, 

vol.  ii.  p.  261.  Lord  Barrington's  Wks.  (John  20:  22,)  and  therefore  that  they 

vol.  ii.  p.  13,  &c.  and  p.  15,  §  4.     The  were  representatives,  not  of  the  Church, 

Methodist  Ma?,  and  Quart.  Rev.  July,  but  of   Christ,  and  that  we  were  'so 

1831,  pp.  325,  326.     Bridge's  Christian  to  account  of  them   as  ministers    of 

Ministry,  part  iv.  ch.  i.      Scriptural  Christ:'  (1    Cor.  4:  1 :)  in  labor,  in- 

Grounds  of  Union,  by   Prof.    Schole-  deed,  the  servants  of  the  Church,  but 

field  of  Cambridge,  p.  23.     Bp.    San-  in  authority,  'ambassadors  for  Christ, 

derson's  Div.  Right  of  the  Episcop.  in  (1  Cor.  4  :  5;  5:  20.)  We  need  scarce- 

Angl.    Fathers,  vol.  i.  p.  312,  and  bish-  ly  remind   our  clerical    readers,  that 

op  Sparrow,  in  do.  p.  334.     Benson's  this    was    their    ordination    commis- 

Disc.  on  the  Power  of  the  Ministry,  sion.' 


76 


THE    COMMISSION    WAS 


blessing  —  'and,  lo,  I  am  with  you  always,  even  unto  the  end 
of  the  world.' l 

In  short,  our  Lord  here  institutes  the  christian  church,  as 
his  kingdom  or  society,  by  the  appointment  of  officers;  by 
giving  to  them  the  power  of  administering  the  rules,  and 
communicating  the  instructions,  made  known  by  Him,  for  its 
government ;  and  by  giving  authority  for  the  admission  and 
exclusion  of  members.2  And  when  it  is  remembered,  that 
in  delivering  this  commission,  our  Lord  spake  to  Jews 
brought  up  in  the  daily  observance  of  the  worship  and  order 
of  the  synagogue,  which  had  its  officers,  its  laws,  and  its 
forms  of  admitting  members,  it  will  be  at  once  perceived, 
that,  in  these  words,  there  is  a  clear  and  explicit  enunciation 
of  the  whole  platform  of  the  christian  church.  For  '  this 
power  was  not  given  to  the  apostles'  persons  only,  but  Christ 
here  promised  to  be  with  them,  in  that  office,  to  the  end  of  the 
world ;  that  is,  to  them  and  their  successors  in  that  pastoral 
office.'3 

§  4.  This  commission  was  not  given  to  the  apostles,  but  to 
all  the  disciples,  as  representatives  of  the  church  universal, 
and  includes  in  it  all  ecclesiastical  power  and  jurisdiction. 

Since,  therefore,  this  commission  is  regarded  by  all  as  the 
complete  and  final  charter  of  the  christian  ministry,  while 
many  believe  it  to  be  the  only  one,  we  may  well  expect,  that 
if,  in  that  ministry,  there  arc  three  essentially  distinct  orders, 
with  their  peculiar  functions,  and  of  such  importance  too  as  to 
be  of '  the  substance  of  the  faith,'  they  will  be  very  distinctly 
and  unequivocally  enumerated.  Were  an  earthly  monarch 
to  issue  a  commission,  for  the  appointment  of  officers  in  per- 
petuity, and  for  the  discharge  of  specific  and  all-important 
duties;  and  were  a  certain  portion  of  these  officers,  in  after 
ages,  to  combine,  by  their  own  enactments,  to  invest  them- 
selves, as  their  peculiar  prerogative,  with  some  presidential 
authority,  with  which  custom  had  temporarily  endowed 
them  ;  would  nol  the  other  officers  justly  require  the  produc- 
tion of  the  original  charter,  that  by  its  wording  their  claims 
might  be  either  invalidated  or  confirmed  1  Most  assuredly. 
In  like  manner,  when  a  portion  of  the  christian  ministry  now 
demand,  as  their  exclusive   preeminence  and  right,  certain 

t)  See   Ogilby  on  Lay  Baptism,  3)  Bp.  Sparrow  in  the  Anglican 

pp.  19,20.  Fathers,  vol. i. p.  334.     Lond.  1841. 

2)  See  Whateleyon  the  Kingdom 
of  Christ,  Essay  ii.  $  3. 


CHAP.  III.]  GIVEN    TO    THE    WHOLE    CHURCH.  77 

powers  and  functions ;  and  when  we  are  told  that,  by  the 
institution  of  Christ,  the  very  existence  of  the  church  de- 
pends on  the  perpetuation  of  these  powers,  in  a  lineal  suc- 
cession ;  we  are  fully  justified  in  producing  Christ's  charter 
and  commission,  and  demanding  that  we  shall  have  pointed 
out  to  us  these  several  orders,  powers,  and  functions.  And  if, 
upon  examination,  this  commission  shall  be  found  to  address 
itself  to  all,  who  should,  at  any  time,  succeed  to  the  office  of  the 
ministry,  in  the  same  words ;  and  to  delegate  to  them  all  the 
same  duties ;  and  this  too  under  the  same  promise  of  divine 
cooperation  ;  then  may  we  feel  assuredly  confident,  that  in 
the  christian  ministry  there  is  but  one  order,  however,  from 
the  necessity  of  circumstances,  the  variety  of  talent,  the  dif- 
ference of  age  or  station,  or  the  appointment  to  some  official 
preeminence,  variations  may  arise  among  them.  All  may 
be  stars,  while  yet  one  star  may  differ  from  another  in  its 
lustre  and  glory. 

The  first  question,  therefore,  that  arises,  in  order  to  under- 
stand properly  this  commission,  is,  to  whom  was  it  originally 
addressed  ?  To  the  apostles  only,  or  to  all  the  disciples,  and 
through  them,  to  the  church  universal,  of  which  they  were 
then  the  only  representatives  ?  Now  this  point  may,  we  think, 
be  clearly  determined.  By  an  appointment  of  our  Lord 
himself,  which  was  afterwards  renewed  through  the  ministry 
of  an  angel  at  the  sepulchre,  the  apostles  proceeded,  some  ten 
days  after  the  resurrection,  into  Galilee,  where  it  was  promised 
they  should  see  the  Lord.1  As  they  proceeded  on  their 
journey,  they  were  joined  by  some  others,  who  were  also 
disciples  of  Christ.2  On  their  arrival  at  Galilee  their  number, 
which  cannot  be  precisely  ascertained,  was  increased  by  the 
addition  of  some  five  hundred  disciples  gathered  from  within 
that  country.3  There,  on  some  retired  mountain,  not  im- 
probably the  very  same  on  which  he  was  transfigured,4  and 
to  which  he  customarily  resorted,  our  Lord  made  his  appear- 
ance not  to  the  twelve  merely,  but,  as  bishop  Horsley  rightly 
affirms,  '  to  a  promiscuous  multitude  of  disciples.'5 

This,  therefore,  was  that  assembled  multitude,  the  repre- 
sentatives of  his  church  and  kingdom,  and  his  witnesses  unto 
men,  to  whom,  when  they  had  come  together,  our  Lord 
revealed  himself;  with  whom  he  conversed;  whom  he  gra- 
ciously blessed ;  to  whom  he  gave  his  ascending  commis- 
sion ;  from  whom  he  was  parted ;  and  who  worshipped  him. 

1)  Matt.  26  :  32,  and  28  : 7.  4)  See  Dr.  Whitby  on  Matt.  2S  : 

2)  Luke,  24  :9,33.  16,17. 

3)  1  Cor.  15:6.  5)  Sermons  on  the  Resurrection, 

Sermon  Second. 


78  THE    COMMISSION    WAS  [BOOK    I. 

It  cannot  be  believed,  that  there  were  none  present,  in  that 
large  multitude,  but  the  apostles,  to  whom  our  Saviour  ad- 
dressed himself,  and  gave  this  commission.  It  was  given 
evidently  to  his  church.  It  is  the  fundamental  institute  for 
the  full  organization  of  his  spiritual  kingdom.  By  virtue  of 
this  commission,  all  who  were  led  to  feel  his  inward  call,  in  a 
willingness  to  devote  themselves  to  the  work  of  the  ministry, 
were  authorized  to  do  so.  How  they  were  to  be  inducted  into 
their  office,  and  by  whose  agency,  and  with  what  formalities, 
is  another  question,  not  necessary  to  the  present  discussion. 
This  much  is  evident,  that  all  power  being  given  to  Christ,  in 
heaven  and  on  earth,  he  now  formally  organized  his  church, 
and  left  with  il  this  ministerial  commission,  for  the  perpetua- 
tion of  an  order  of  ministers  clothed  with  full  authority  and 
power. l 

In  confirmation  of  the  opinion  that  this  commission,  thus 
delivered  to  what  may  be  considered  the  whole  body  of  the 
church  till  the  day  of  Pentecost,'2  and  the  representatives  of 
that  church  for  ever,  we  may  adduce  the  tenor  of  the  accom- 
panying promise.  This  is  so  worded,  as  plainly  to  include 
not  only  the  apostles  but  all  the  disciples, and  to  refer  to  some 
previously  understood  and  explained  meaning  of  Christ's 
words.  Christ  plainly  addressed  these  words  to  that  bodv, 
or  kingdom,  of  which  he  had  previously  spoken  as  the  church. 
Now  when  he  directed  his  followers  to  '  hear  the  church,' 
(Matt.  18:  17,)  Christ  carefully  abstains  from  any  allusion  to 
a  class  of  supreme  ecclesiastical  judges  by  whom  all  cases 
were  to  be  tried,  but  referred  to  '  the  church,'  in  the  familiar 
Jewish  sense,  as  embracing  equally  its  members  and  its 
officers,  in  which  it  was  understood  by  his  disciples,  and 
employed  by  his  contemporaries.  When  he  would  further 
describe  what  he  understood  by  a  church,  he  declares,  that 
wherever  '  two  or  three  are  gathered  together  in  his  name 
there  would  he  be  in  the  midst  of  them.'     In  exactly  similar 

1)    See   this   confirmed   by  John  Cent.  1,  c.  4  ;  Cent.  6,  7  col.  591.     In 

Ferus,  a  friar  of  St.  Francis's  order,  in  Sion's  Royal  Prerog.  p.  27.     See  also 

his   Comment,  on   Acts  11,  in    Sion's  Zuinglius,    Luther,    and    others,     in 

Roy.  Prerog.  p.  26;   GratianCaus.il,  ibid,  p.  29  ;  Grotius  de  Imperio,  Sum 

p.  36;  Gregory  Epist.  1.  4,  ep.  8,  2;  Protest. c.  10, pp. 269, 279.     This  idea, 

P.  iEneas  Silvius  Digest.  Cone.  Basil,  which  is  fully  announced  by  Tertul- 

1.  i. ;  Pope    Auraclatus   Dist.  21,  c.  in  lian,  was    perpetuated  as    late  as  the 

Nov.    Test.;    Sextus    Saucnsis     Bib.  third  century.     See  proofs  in   Nean- 

Sanct.   1.   viii.  Annot.    171;   Thomas  der's  Hist,  or  ihe  Chr.  Rel.  vol.  i.  pp. 

Aquinas,  in  4  Sent.  Dist.  2, 4,  q.  3,  Act  200,  201,  and  Hist,  of  the  Plant,  of  the 

2;    Alexander  of  Ales    Sum    Theol.  Chr.  Rel.  vol.  i.  p.  7,  &c. 

Pt.  iv.  q.  20  me  5,6;  John  Scott,  in  2)  Robert  Hall's  Wks.  Svo.  Eng. 

Magist    Sent.   1.  iv.  dist.  19,  art.    1;  ed.  vol.  ii.  p.  38. 


CHAP.  III.]  GIVEN    TO    THE    WHOLE    CHURCH.  79 

words,  and  with  a  similar  meaning,  when  now  about  to 
leave  this  church,  bodily,  Christ  renews  this  glorious  assurance, 
saying,  'and,  lo,  I  am  with  you  always,  even  unto  the  end  of 
the  world.'  The  idea  unquestionably  is,  that  the  church  is 
still  Christ's  kingdom  ;  that  He  would  still  be  in  the  midst 
of  it;  and  that,  while  absent  in  body,  he  would  be  far  more 
really  and  gloriously  present  by  his  spiritual  manifestations. 
Or  as  Luther,  in  his  reply  to  the  prior-general  of  the  Domin- 
icans, represents  it,  the  church  exists,  virtually,  in  Christ 
alone.1  The  Saviour  would  appear  to  have  studiously 
endeavored  to  signify,  that  he  was  looking  on  the  disciples 
before  him  as  the  representatives  of  all  future  teachers  and 
disciples,  even  to  the  end  of  the  world. 

The  prelatical  theory,  on  the  contrary,  goes  on  the  presump- 
tion, that  Christ  has  delivered  over  all  his  authority  in  the 
church  below,  to  the  order  of  prelates,  to  whom  is  given  the 
plenitude  of  episcopal  power.  These,  they  tell  us,  are  the 
vicars  of  Christ,  the  successors  of  the  apostles,  and  the  spirit- 
ual sovereigns  of  the  church.  Now  the  very  notion  of  vicari- 
ous functions  and  authority  supposes  the  absence  of  the  prin- 
cipal, in  whose  name  they  are  discharged,  since  it  involves 
a  contradiction,  to  suppose  him  to  act  in  person,  and  by  rep- 
resentatives, at  the  same  time.  Either,  then,  Christ  is  really 
absent  from  the  church,  or  there  is  no  vicarious  order  of 
spiritual  trustees  to  whom  is  delegated  his  spiritual  authority, 
since  Christ,  if  present, must  be  supreme,  and  cannot  share  a 
joint  prerogative  with  his  own  servants.2  But  Christ  here 
anticipates,  and  for  ever  condemns  this  capital  error  of  pre- 
lacy, which  is,  too,  the  very  corner-stone  of  the  papacy. 
The  supreme  Head  of  the  church  has  here  reserved  to  Him- 
self alone,  the  prerogative  to  mediate  and  reign,  to  rule  and 
govern,  to  legislate  and  bless,  and  to  give  efficiency  and  suc- 
cess, to  his  church.  To  his  pastors,  or  under-shepherds,  he 
has  assigned  no  other  dulies  than  faithfully  to  teach  and  min- 
ister to  his  church,  according  to  the  truth  and  order  of  his 
heavenly  word,  and  for  the  edification  of  that  body.  And 
while  the  church  must  necessarily  appoint  teachers,  and  these 
must  govern  and  rule,  and  frame  regulations  for  the  wise 
conduct  of  affairs,  and  for  the  introduction  of  future  minis- 
ters, yet  is  it  here  expressly  declared,  that  Christ  will  be  ever 
spiritually  present,  to  give  to  his  own  chosen  servants  a  heart 
fitted  for  the  work ;  to  his  people  guidance  in  their  selection 

1)  Ego  ecclesiam  vertualiter  non  2)   See  Nolan's  Catholic  Char,  of 

scio  nisi  in   Christo.    L.  opp.  lat.  p.     Christ,  p.  143. 
174. 


80  THE    COMMISSION    WAS  [BOOK  I. 

of  officers,  and  to  both  his  blessing  in  their  mutual  labors. 
These  words,  and  consequently  the  whole  commission,  are 
addressed  to  the  church.  '  They  cannot,'  says  Hadrian  Sa- 
ravia,  '  be  understood  as  referring  to  the  apostles  only,  but  to 
all ;  our  Saviour  bidding  all  be  of  good  cheer,  and  promising 
to  be  with  them.  This  promise  cannot  be  disjoined  from 
the  precept  preceding,  and  it  consequently  appears  that  Christ 
commanded  his  church  to  provide,  that  the  gospel  should  be 
preached  to  unbelievers,  after  the  departure  of  the  apostles, 
according  to  the  opportunities  of  time,  place,  and  persons.'1 

To  assume  that  our  Lord  in  these  words  spake  to  the  apos- 
tles only,  as  the  representatives  of  the  pastors  of  the  church, 
and  not  as  the  representatives  of  his  disciples  generally,  is,  to 
say  the  least,  unwarranted,  or  as  it  appears  to  us  much  worse. 
And  so  thought  bishop  Pearson,  for  he  has  expounded  the 
promise  as  one  applying  to  the  church  at  large,  adopting,  as 
he  declares,  the  interpretation  given  to  the  passage  by  Leo 
and  Augustine.2  Such  also  was  ihe  undoubted  opinion  of 
Tertullian,  Justin  Martyr,  and  of  Hilary,  as  defended  by 
E-igaltius,  of  Grotius,  Salmasius,  Bingham,  and  others.3 

Similar  also  is  the  general  strain  of  the  scripture  promises 
and  declarations  concerning  the  church.  Christ's  giving 
1  some  to  be  apostles ;  and  some  prophets ;  and  some  evan- 
gelists; and  some  pastors  and  teachers;'  was  'for  the  per- 
fecting of  the  saints'  and  '  for  the  edifying  of  the  body  of 
Christ.'4  Presbyters  are  enjoined  to  'feed  the  church  of  God, 
which  he  hath  purchased  with  his  own  blood.' 5  '  For  all 
things,'  says  the  apostle  Paul,  speaking  of  the  church  gener- 
ally, '  are  yours,  whether  Paul,  or  Apollos,  or  Cephas,  —  all 
are  yours;  and  ye  are  Christ's;  and  Christ  is  God's.'6  Now 
in  these  passages  it  is  expressly  taught,  that  it  was  only  for 
the  benefit  of  the  church  Christ  appointed  teachers,  conferred 
gifts  upon  them,  and  assigned  to  them  their  work.  Many  are 
the  promises  in  the  word  of  God  to  the  same  effect.7 

The  same  conclusion  is  forced  upon  us  by  the  conduct  of 

1)  On  the  Priesthood,  p.  162.  quoted  in  Goode's  Div.  Rule  of  Faith, 

2)  Goode's   Div.  Rule  of    Faith    vol.  ii.  pp.  52-58. 

and  Practice,  vol.  ii.  pp.  122,  123, Eng.  4)   Eph.  4:  8.  11,  12. 

ed.    Pearson  on  the  Creed,  p.  512,  and  5)  Acts  20:  28. 

the  quotations  there.  6)  1  Cor.  3  :  21-23. 

3)  Tract.de  Exhort.  Castif.  c.  7.  7)  Isaiah  27:  3.  1  Cor.  3:  7. 
and  de  Pudicit,  c.  21.  Justin  Martyr  Matt. 16:  IS.  Eph.  2:  20,21.  1  Cor. 
Dial,  cum  Trypho,  §  116, 117.  Hilary  6:10.  Rev.2:l.  Isa.  4  :  5,  0,  and 
Comm.  on  Eph.  1:  11,  12.  Grotius  32:  2.  Isa.  40:  11.  John,  10  :  9, 11,27- 
de  Admin.  Cirna-  ubi  pastores  non  29.  Isa.  9:  6,  7.  Luke,  1 :  32,  33.  See 
sunt.  Salmasius  de  Episcopis.  Bing-  McLean's  Wks.  vol.  i.  pp.  307,  308. 
ham,  Eccl.  Ant.  B.  1,  c.  i.  §  54.  See  all 


CHAP.  III.]  GIVEN    TO    THE    WHOLE    CHURCH.  81 

those  who  listened  to  this  commission.  '  The  Acts  of  the 
Apostles'  is  a  practical  commentary  upon  this  charter.  Now 
from  this  we  learn,  that  while  the  injunction  to  preach  was 
given  to  the  body,  no  individual  acted  upon  it  until,  on  the 
day  of  pentecost,  he  was  endued  with  power  from  on  high, 
and  felt,  in  the  gifts  of  the  Spirit,  the  inward  call  and  qualifi- 
cations for  the  work.  We  also  learn  that  on  that  day  '  they 
were  all  with  one  accord  in  one  place  .  .  and  they  were  all 
filled  with  the  Holy  Ghost,  and  began  to  speak  with  other 
tongues  as  the  Spirit  gave  them  utterance,'  '  and  every  man 
heard  them  speak  in  his  own  language.'  (Acts  2:  1,4,6.) 
Here,  also,  we  learn  that  when  another  individual  was  to  be 
added  to  the  apostolic  college,  the  whole  number  of  the 
'brethren'  'gave  forth  their  lots'  as  the  voice  of  the  church, 
'  and  the  lots  fell  on  Mathias.'  So  also  when  the  new  order 
of  officers — the  deacons  —  were  to  be  introduced  into  the 
church,  then  the  twelve  called  the  whole  multitude  of  the 
disciples  unto  them  and  said,  '  brethren  look  ye  out  among 
you  seven  men  of  honest  report,'  &c.  Stephen,  though  not 
a  prelate,  and  without  any  imposition  of  the  hands  of  a  pre- 
late, exercised  his  gift  of  preaching,  (Acts  6 :  8  — 10.  Phil.  8  : 
12.)  Ananias  and  others  aints,  when  dispersed  by  persecution, 
also  preached1  (Acts  9 :  10,  and  8 :  4,)  and  baptized.  It  was 
by  the  men  of  Cyprus  and  Cyrene  the  christians  at  Antioch 
were  first  converted,2  (v.  16.)  Apollos,  without  ordination, 
preached  at  Alexandria,  at  Ephesus,  and  at  Corinth,  before  he 
had  seen  either  an  apostle,  an  evangelist,  or  a  presbyter.3 

This,  says  Lord  Barrington,  was  then  a  common  thing 
for  all  that  could  do  it,  without  any  ordination  whatsoever; 
teaching  being  a  duty  in  all  that  had  abilities  and  inclin- 
ation ...  as  things  stood  in  the  church  before  the  canon 
of  the  New  Testament  was  completed,  and  the  church  per- 
fectly organized.  And  in  this  way  does  he  suppose  Paul 
and  Barnabas  to  have  preached  for  years  before  Paul  was 
made  an  apostle.4  All  that  received  the  Holy  Ghost  took  that 
as  a  commission  to  exercise  the  gifts  they  had  received  in 
christian  assemblies.5      Neither  was  any  one  of  the  apostles 

1)    They  are   justified   by   Prof.  2)  Barrington's    Wks.  vol.   ii.  p. 

Scholefield,  in  his  Script.  Grounds  of  281,  and  Acts  11:  20,  21,  23,  24. 
Union,  p.  85.     And  also  by  Cyprian,  3)  See  Thorndike's  Prim.  Govt,  of 

who  distinctly  acknowledges  the  fact,  the  Churches,  p.  96,  ch.  ix. 
in  Ep.  73,  §  8,  p.  237.     Marshall's  Ed.  4)  See  Wks.  vol.  ii.  p.  252,  et  pas- 

and   Note.      Also  by  Goode  in  Div.  sim,  and  vol.  i.  pp.  119,  120. 
Rule  of  Faith,   vol.  ii.  p.  57,  and  by  5)  Ibid. p.  253.  Phil.  1 :  12— 18.  See 

Erasmus,  Ep.  59,  in  ibid.  p.  55.  and  by  also  Herschel's  Reasons  why  I,  a  Jew, 

all  referred  to,  in  preced.  have  become    a  Catholic,  and  not  a 

R.  Catholic,  pp.  18.  19. 
11 


82  THE    COMMISSION    WAS    GIVEN  [BOOK  I. 

ever  ordained  by  imposition  of  hands,  except  Paul,  (Acts,  13 : 
1,  &c.)  who  was  thus  consecrated  as  a  pattern  to  all  who 
should  hereafter  be  called  to  the  ministry.1  If,  then,  the  apos- 
tles and  primitive  christians  to  whom  this  commission  was 
addressed,  were  at  all  competent  to  understand  its  reference, 
they  certainly  conceived  that  it  was  given  to  the  church  and 
not  to  the  apostles.2 

This  conclusion  is  confirmed  also  by  the  very  nature  of  the 
christian  ministry,  as  it  is  universally  regarded.  For  by  his 
call  and  ordination,  every  minister  is  constituted  primarily,  a 
minister  of  the  church  universal,  although  he  exercises  this 
ministry  over  some  particular  charge.  The  office  of  the  min- 
istry has  reference,  first,  to  the  universal  or  catholic  church,  so 
that  he  who  is  ordained,  is  empowered  to  perform  any  office 
of  the  ministry  in  any  part  of  that  church,  to  which  God  in 
his  providence  may  call  him ;  or  to  render  temporary  assist- 
ance to  any  other  pastors,  or  to  any  people  without  a  pastor,  in 
the  administration  of  ordinances,  in  preaching,  or  in  the  exer- 
cise of  discipline.  Secondly,  this  office  has  reference  to  the 
infidel  world,  or  to  the  unconverted,  and  empowers  every 
minister,  wherever  he  has  opportunity,  to  seek  their  conver- 
sion and  introduction  into  the  visible  church.  And  thirdly, 
this  office  has  reference  to  a  particular  church,  empowering 
him  who  is  called  to  a  pastoral  charge,  to  give  to  his  people 
the  ordinary  exercise  of  his  ministry,  and  so  long  as  the  rela- 
tion continues,  to  confine  to  them  his  chief  care  and  more 
stated  labors ;  without,  however,  in  any  degree,  affecting  his 
relation  to  the  church  in  general ;  his  character  of  minister  of 
the  church  catholic ;  his  power  to  act,  as  such,  wherever  it 
may  be  necessary  or  proper;  or  his  freedom  to  alter  his  rela- 
tions whenever  it  shall  appear  to  be  his  duty.  The  pastoral 
charge,  therefore,  arises  from  the  necessary  limitation  in  the 
ability  and  power  of  any  one  man  and  his  incapacity  to  dis- 
charge the  pastoral  office  to  the  whole  church,  and  not  from 
any  original  limitations  in  the  powers  of  the  ministry  as  an 
office.  In  short,  the  ministry  is  an  office  in  the  universal,  and 
not  in  any  particular  church  ;  and  this  commission,  there- 
fore, must  be  that  of  the  church  universal. 

Nor  does  this  view  of  this  commission,  want  authority  from 
'the  sacred  fathers.'  Tertullian  shall  speak  for  the  primitive 
church,  before    transformed   by    the    tawdry   innovations   of 

1)  See  Dr.  Wilson's  Prim.  Govt.  2)  See  D'Aubigne's  Hist,  of  Ref. 

of  the   Ch.  p.  273,  and  letters  on  the     vol.  i.  p.  4.  Eng.  ed. 
Fathers,  by  Misopapismus,  (an  Epis- 
copalian,) p.  13,  &c. 


CHAP.  III. 


TO    THE    WHOLE    CHURCH.  83 


Cyprian  'the  most  glorious  pope.'1  According  to  archbishop 
Potter,  'he  affirms  that  all  christians  were  made  priests  by 
Christ,  so  that  when  three  are  gathered  together,  they  make  a 
church,  though  they  be  all  laymen ;  and  where  no  clergyman 
is  present,  laymen  may  baptize   and  celebrate  the  eucharist, 

THE  DISTINCTION    BETWEEN    CLERGY    AND     LAITY    BEING     ONLY 

of  the  church's  appointment.'2  Similar  is  the  judgment 
of  Ignatius,  who  declares  that  'where  Jesus  Christ  is,  there  is 
the  catholic  church,'3  thus  representing  catholic  unity,  to  de- 
pend not  upon  the  communion  or  order  of  the  bishop ;  but 
only  upon  Christ,  who,  though  absent,  was  present  in  Spirit. 
Thus,  also,  the  author  of  the  commentaries,  under  St.  Am- 
brose's name,  in  speaking  on  Eph.  4:  11, 12,  is  forced  to  ad- 
mit, that  in  the  beginning  all  preached,  and  baptized,  and  ex- 
plained the  scriptures.  '  Tamen  postquam  in  omnibus 
locis  ecclesise  sunt  constitutae,  et  officia  ordinata,  aliter  compo- 
sita  res  est  quam  caeperat.  Primum  enim  omnes  docebant, 
et  omnes  baptizabant,  quibuscunque  diebus  vel  temporibus 
fuisset  occasio.'  And  again,  '  ut  ergo  cresceret  plebs  et  mul- 
tiplicaretur,  omnibus  inter  initia,  concessum  est  et  evangeli- 
zare,  et  baptizare,  et  scripturas  in  ecclesia  explanare.'4  The 
same  thing  is  also  clearly  established  by  the  universal  judg- 
ment of  the  fathers,  that  when  Christ  gave  the  keys  and  his 
glorious  promises  to  Peter,  it  was  only  to  him  as  the  represent- 
ative of  the  church.  '  Petrus,'  says  Augustine,  '  quando 
claves  accepit  ecclesiam  sanctam  significavit.'5  'In  the  be- 
ginning,' says  Ambrosiaster,  '  it  was  conceded  to  all,  to  preach, 
to  baptize,  to  explain  the  scripture  ;  afterward,  offices  were  ap- 
pointed, so  that  none  of  the  clergy  would  dare  to  fill  an  office 
which  he  knew  was  not  intrusted  to  him.'6  Du  Pin  shows 
that  the  ancient  fathers  'with  an  unanimous  consent  do  teach 
that  the  keys  were  given  to  the  whole  church,  in  the  per- 
son  of  Peter.'7      Tostatus   bishop    of   Avila,  says,8   'That 

1)  He  is  thus  addressed  in  an  clearly  of  opinion,  that  all  jurisdiction 
epistle  from  Rome.   See  his  Wks.  Ep.     was  originally  given,  in  effect,  to  lay 

2)  Potter,  on  Ch.   Govt.  ch.  iv.    persons. 

p.  168.     Eng.  ed.  Tert.  Exh.  Cast.  c.  6)     Cap.  5.  Epist.  ad  Ephes.  in 

7.     See  Nolan's  Cath.  Char,  of  Christ,  Dr.  Elliott  on  Romanism,  vol.  i.  p.  472. 

p.  100,  and  Hickes  ibid.  7)     SeePalmerontheCh.vol.il. 

3)  Ep.  ad  Smyrn.  c.  7.  and  No-  p.  485,  part  vii.  c.  1,  Eng.  ed.  See 
lan's  Cath.  Char.  p.  97.  also,  these  testimonies  given  by  Dr. 

4)  St.  Ambros,  Opp.  torn.  iii.  p.  Pusey,  in  Library  of  the  Fathers,  vol. 
617,ed.  Paris,1586,inThorndike,p.95.  x.  p.  498.     See  also  numerous  testi- 

5)  Expositio  in  Evang.  Johan.  monies,  in  confirmation  of  the  same 
Tract.  50  decap.  12.  torn.  ix.  p.  152.  point,  adduced  by  Claude,  in  his  Def. 
Paris,  1635.  S.  Leonis  Magni  Serm.  iii.  of  the  Reform,  ii.  246,  &c. 

p.  53.  ed.   Lugdun.  1700,   and  Thorn-  8)     In  Numer.  cap  15,  quest.  48 

dike,  pp.   139,  137,  and  p.  198,  who  is    and  49.     In  Claude  ii.  254. 


84  THE    COMMISSION    WAS    GIVEN  [BOOK  I. 

although  the  acts  of  jurisdiction  cannot  be  exercised  by  the 
whole  community,  yet  that  jurisdiction  belongs  to  the  whole 
community  in  regard  of  its  origin  and  efficacy,  because  the 
magistrates  receive  their  jurisdiction  from  it.'  He  adds,  after- 
wards, '  that  it  is  the  same  in  the  keys  of  the  church,  that  Jesus 
Christ  gave  them  to  the  whole  church  in  the  person  of  St. 
Peter.  And  that  it  is  the  church  that  communicates  them  to 
the  prelates,  but  which,  notwithstanding,  communicates  them 
without  depriving  itself  of  them  ;  so  that  the  church  has  them, 
and  the  prelates  have  them,  but  in  a  different  manner;  for 
the  church  has  them  in  respect  of  origin  and  virtue,  and  the 
prelates  have  them  only  in  respect  of  use ;  the  church  has 
them  virtually,  because  she  can  give  them  to  a  prelate  by 
election,  and  she  has  them  originally  also.  For  the  power  of 
a  prelate  does  not  take  its  origin  from  itself,  but  from  the 
church,  by  means  of  the  election  that  it  makes  of  him.  The 
church  that  chose  him  gives  him  that  jurisdiction,  but  as  for 
the  church,  it  receives  it  from  nobody  after  its  having  once 
received  it  from  Jesus  Christ.  The  church,  therefore,  has  the 
keys  originally  and  virtually,  and  whenever  she  gives  them 
to  a  prelate,  she  does  not  give  them  to  him  after  the  man- 
ner that  she  has  them,  to  wit,  originally  and  virtually,  but  she 
gives  them  to  him  only  as  to  use.' 

But  we  need  not  further  delay,  in  proving  what  the  conduct 
of  the  church  in  every  age  attests,  that  she  regarded  herself  as 
receiving  this  commission  in  trust  for  the  honor  of  Christ,  the 
welfare  of  his  body,  and  the  perpetuity  of  his  laws.  How 
she  has  abused  this  trust,  by  making  it  subservient  to  the 
interests  of  the  hierarchy,  to  the  misery  and  ruin  of  Christ's 
'  royal  priesthood,'  eternity  will  fearfully  disclose,  and  history, 
in  its  measure,  now  declares. 

This  commission,  then,  being,  as  we  have  seen,  addressed  to 
the  church,  as  then  represented  by  the  five  hundred  brethren, 
including  among  them  the  twelve  apostles,  and  probably  also, 
the  seventy  disciples  as  representatives  of  the  future  min- 
istry, it  follows  that  the  radical  power  of  the  ministry,  as 
an  instrumental  agency,  is  in  the  church  of  God,  and  that 
the  church  does  not  receive  her  being,  or  her  power,  or  her 
blessing  from  the  ministry,  but  from  Christ,  by  the  continu- 
ous agency  of  this  ministry.1  It  was  'unto  this  catholic  vis- 
ible church,  Christ  gave  the  ministry.'2  '  The  whole  church 
visible,'  says  Hooker, 'was  the  true  original  subject  of  all 
power.'3     '  God,'  says  Bucer,  'gave  the  power  of  ordination 

1)     See  Thorndike,on  Prim.  Govt  2)     Confession  of  Faith,  ch.  25 

of  the  Ch.  p.  198.  3)     Eccl.  Pol   B.  vii.  p.  37. 


CHAP.  III.]  TO    THE    WHOLE    CHURCH.  85 

to  the  church  (simplicitcr)  and  not  to  individuals,  and  the 
presbytery  are  but  the  servants  of  the  church.1  Christ  gave 
the  exlraordinay  officers,  for  the  establishment  of  His  church, 
and  the  ordinary  ministers,  for  its  perfection,  and  edification 
when  organized  and  formed.2  '  We  lay  it  down,'  to  use  ihe 
words  of  Dr.  Rice,  'as  a  fundamental  principle  in  our  system 
of  polity,  that  ecclesiastical  power  is  by  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ 

VESTED  IN  THE  CHURCH  ',  it  BELONGS  to  the  BODY  OF  THE  FAITH- 
FUL people.'3  And  hence  it  follows,  that  should  any  interruption 
or  removal  of  the  true  and  lawful  ministry  take  place,  God's 
church  and  people  are  in  such  a  case,  thrown  back  upon  their 
original  rights ;  and  are  empowered,  by  authority  of  this  com- 
mission, to  call  any  individuals,  whom  Christ  has  gifted,  to 
officiate  in  the  church ;  until,  in  this  way,  a  gospel  ministry 
is  again  instituted,  and  the  church  permanently  officered  and 
organized.  In  such  a  case  as  this,  the  church  has  power  to 
set  up  the  ministry  and  to  restore  it,  according  to  Christ's  own 
institution;  and  the  inward  call  of  God,  enlarging,  stirring  up  and 
assisting  the  heart,  together  with  the  good  will  and  assent  of  a 
people  whom  God  makes  willing  to  receive  him,  can  fully  au- 
thorize and  consecrate  any  man  to  the  ministerial  office.  The 
whole  office,  authority,  and  functions  of  the  ministry,  rest,  there- 
fore, upon  this  charter.  These  cannot  be  originated  or  impart- 
ed by  man.  Neither  bishops  nor  presbyters  can  convey 
them.  If  they  could,  then  ministers  would  be  commissioned 
by  them ;  would  derive  all  their  authority  from  them ;  and 
ought,  therefore,  to  preach  and  baptize  in  their  name.  But 
who  would  listen  to  such  man-made  ministers,  or  receive 
ordinances  at  their  hands?  Men  ordain,  but  they  cannot 
call  to  the  ministry ;  or  qualify  for  it ;  or  impart  spiritual 
gifts ;  or  authoritatively  empower  others  to  preach  the  gospel. 
All  that  men  can  do,  is  to  designate  those  who  give  evidence 
of  having;  been  called  and  commissioned  by  God,  and  to  give 
them,  by  imposition  of  hands,  a  public  investiture  with  office, 
an  introduction  to  the  confidence  and  obedience  of  the  church. 
They  recognize  certain  individuals  as  possessing  the  authority 
conveyed  by  this  commission,  and  ministerially  impart  power 
coram  ecclesia,  to  those  who  had  already  received  it  coram 
deo.A  Ordination  by  man,  is  only,  therefore,  a  ministerial 
investiture  with  office,  and  a  positive  institution,  for  order's 
sake,  to  prevent  the  intrusion  of  unqualified  persons  into  the 

1)  In  Brooke   on  Episc.  p.  74.  to  the  people,  the  exercise  of  it  to  the 

2)  Eph.  4:  11—13.  officers.     See  also  Whateley's    King- 

3)  Evang.  Mag.  vol.  x.  p.  535.  dom  of  Christ,  Essay  ii.  §  38.  p.  221. 
Again,  pp.  536,538,  the  power  belongs  4)     See  chap.  iii.  §  2. 


86  THE    REFORMERS  [BOOK  I. 

sacred  office.1  And  thus  supposing  the  reformers  to  have 
received  no  ordination,  which,  however,  was  not  the  case, 
they  were,  nevertheless,  fully  empowered  by  this  divine  char- 
ter—  ever  ancient  in  the  eternal  nature  of  the  truths  it  con- 
tains, and  the  rights  it  bestows,  and  ever  new  in  the  regener- 
ative influence  it  promises  and  secures  —  and  the  inward 
call  of  heaven,  to  preach  the  gospel  in  its  purity  ;  to  refute 
the  popish  errors ;  to  recover  men  from  the  grasp  of  the  de- 
stroyer; to  constitute  churches;  to  institute  a  regular  minis- 
try; to  edify  the  church;  to  propogate  the  truth;  to  purge 
ecclesiastical  discipline  from  abuses;  and  to  restore  to  the 
church  its  primitive  and  scriptural  polity.-  The  visible 
church  being  then  in  a  state  of  rebellion  against  its  only  law- 
ful king ;  the  pope  and  his  vassals  having  traitorously  con- 
spired against  their  sovereign;  the  laws,  and  canons,  and 
customs  of  man  having  usurped  the  place  of  Christ's  divine 
institutes ;  and  all  nations  having  been  either  deluded  or  forced 
into  this  conspiracy ;  it  was  the  sacred  and  patriotic  duty 
of  all  true  liegemen,  to  rally  round  the  standard  of  their 
prince,  to  unfurl  the  banner  of  His  truth,  to  proclaim  Christ's 
sole  supremacy,  and  to  restore  his  kingdom  to  its  rightful  gov- 
ernment.3 It  was  in  this  spirit  these  martyred  fathers  regard- 
ed their  previous  ordination  as  valid,  not  because  they  had 
been  consecrated  by  prelates  of  the  church  of  Rome,  but  be- 
cause they  had  received  their  authority  from  Jesus  Christ 
and  his  apostles,  by  virtue  of  this  immutable  charter.4  They 
believed,  that  the  institution  of  the  ministry  was  preserved  to 
the  church,  not  by  any  succession  of  individuals,  nor  by 
any  transmission  of  authority  from  man  to  man,  but  by 
the  perpetuity  of  this  original  commission;  and  that,  however 
many  may  have  been  unduly  appointed  under  it,  and  have 
unrighteously  usurped  unsanctioned  power,  the  institution  was 
still  preserved  in  all  its  authority.5  Let,  then,  prelates  know 
lhat  the  church  is  not  dependent  upon  them,  but  they  upon 
the  church  ;  and  that  the  church  was  never  abandoned  by  its 
divine  author  to  the  management  of  any  vicars  apostolic,  but 

1)  See  Claude's  Def.  of  the  Ref.  4)  A  very  full  exhibition  of  their 
vol.  ii.  p.  240,  &c.  sentiments   may  be  seen  in   Hender- 

2)  See  the  very  able  defence  of  son's  Review  and  Consideration.  Ed- 
their  views,  as  given  by  Claude  in  his  inb.  1706.  pp.  252— 269,  and  293,  294, 
Def.  of  the  Ref.  part  iv.  ch.  3,  vol.  ii.  &c,  and  VVhateley's  King,  of  Christ, 
p.  233.     See   also,  pp.  240,  242,  243,  Essay  ii  $  36,  38. 

247,  262,  where  he  shows  that  they  5)     See    Dr.    Hawkins,  on    the 

never  can  be  deprived  of  this  right.  Apost.  Succ.  p.  S. 

3)  See  Whateley's  Kingdom  of 
Christ,  Essay  ii.  §  36. 


CHAP  III.]  VINDICATED.  87 

is  under  the  continual  governance  of  her  ever-living  Head. 
And  let  them  be  rebuked  for  their  anti-christian  doctrine, 
which  would  make  the  truth  and  the  power  of  God  to  depend 
upon  their  succession  of  prelates  ;  and  which  equally  de- 
grades the  two  divine  agents,  the  Son,  and  the  Holy  Ghost; 
and  the  only  divine  instrument,  the  Word  of  God.1  '  It  has 
been  said,'  says  Luther,2  'that  the  pope,  the  bishops,  the 
priests,  and  those  who  dwell  in  convents,  form  the  spiritual 
or  ecclesiastical  state ;  and  that  the  princes,  nobles,  citizens, 
and  peasants,  form  the  secular  state  or  laity.  This  is  a  fine 
story,  truly.  Let  no  one,  however,  be  alarmed  at  it.  All  chris- 
tians belong  to  the  spiritual  state ;  and  there  is  no  other  differ- 
ence between  them,  than  that  of  the  functions  they  discharge. 
*  *  *  *  *  If  any  pious  laymen  were  banished  to  a 
desert,  and  having  no  regularly  consecrated  priest  among 
them,  were  to  agree  to  choose  for  that  office  one  of  their  num- 
ber, married  or  unmarried,  this  man  would  be  as  truly  a 
priest  as  if  he  had  been  consecrated  by  all  the  bishops  in  the 
world.  Augustine,  Ambrose,  and  Cyprian,  were  chosen  in  this 
manner.  Hence  it  follows,  that  laity  and  priests,  princes  and 
bishops,  or,  as  they  say,  the  clergy  and  the  laity,  have,  in  re- 
ality, nothing  to  distinguish  them  but  their  functions.  They 
all  belong  to  the  same  estate;  but  all  have  not  the  same  work 
to  perform,'  &c. 

Having,  therefore,  as  we  hope,  satisfactorily  proved  that  this 
commission  was  originally  given  to  the  church  generally,  and 
not  to  the  apostles  individually,  the  next  inquiry  is,  to  what 
duties  does  it  commission  those,  who,  in  the  name  and  by  the 
authority  of  the  church,  officiate  as  its  ministers?  And  to 
this  inquiry,  ready  answer  may  be  given.  All  who  act  under 
this  charter,  are  empowered,  in  the  first  place,  to  preach  the 
gospel ;  secondly,  to  administer  the  sacraments,  of  which  bap- 
tism is  the  initiating  rite;  and,  thirdly,  to  exercise  all  that  au- 
thority, jurisdiction,  and  discipline,  necessary  for  maintaining 
the  purity,  spirituality,  and  perpetuity  of  the  church. 

That  this  commission  includes,  also,  necessarily,  the  power 
of  ordination,  is  insisted  on  by  our  opponents  themselves. 
Thus  Nelson,  on  Festivals  and  Fasts,  says,  'in  this  commis- 
sion is  plainly  contained  the  authority  of  ordaining  others, 
and  a  power  to  transfer  that  commission  upon  others,  and 

1)  See  Prof.  Scholefield's  Scrip,  of  a  Christian  Man,'  in  Formularies 
Grounds  of  Union,  Cambridge.  1S41,  of  Faith,  in  Reign  of  Henry  VIII,  p. 
and  the  authorities  there  quoted.    See     106. 

also  p.  85.     See  this  view  firmly  and  2)     Opp.  1.  xvii.  f.  457,  et  Seq. 

fully  presented  in   '  The    Institution 


88  THE    GREAT    TRUTHS  [BOOK  I. 

those  upon  others,  to  the  end  of  the  world.  And  to  show 
that  it  was  not  merely  personal  to  the  apostles,  our  Saviour 
promises  to  be  with  them  and  their  successors,  in  the  execu- 
tion of  this  commission,  even  unto  the  end  of  the  world.' x 

§  5.     General  inferences  as  to  the  nature,  extent,  and  designed 
effect  of  this  commission. 

Before  leaving  this  part  of  our  subject,  it  is  necessary  to 
call  attention  to  some  additional  considerations.  The  first  is, 
that  while  this  commission  was  addressed  primarily  to  the 
church,  in  its  universal  character,  and  not  to  the  apostles  or 
ministers,  it  nevertheless  as  plainly  and  certainly  implies  the 
appointment  and  authority  of  an  order  of  teachers.  All  were 
not  to  teach,  otherwise  there  would  have  remained  none  to  be 
taught ;  nor  all  to  administer  sacraments,  or  govern,  else  how 
could  there  be  either  ordinances  or  government  ?  It  is,  there- 
fore, obvious,  as  many  other  parts  of  scripture  declare,  that 
the  existence  of  officers  for  the  instruction  and  management 
of  the  church,  was  as  much  a  part  of  the  design  of  our  Lord, 
as  the  institution  of  the  church  itself.2  The  second  remark 
is,  that  the  great  end  and  object  contemplated  in  the  appoint- 
ment of  these  officers,  was  the  proclamation  of  the  gospel. 
The  preaching  of  the  gospel,  and  the  inculcation  of  its  truths 
upon  those  who  have  professed  to  be  its  disciples,  is  the 
burden  of  this  commission.3  St.  Paul  says  he  was  sent  to 
preach,  not  to  baptize,4  that  is,  even  the  administration  of 
sacraments  was  but  subsidiary  to  the  great  object,  the  sancti- 
fication  of  men's  hearts  through  the  truth.  And  he  further 
assures  us,  that  even  his  power  and  authority  was  given  to 
him,  not  for  the  destruction,  but  for  the  edification  of  the 
church.5  The  christian  ministry  is,  therefore,  consecrated  to 
the  instruction,  persuasion,  and  conversion  of  men.  Like 
prophecy,  its  very  spirit  and  power  consists  in  bearing  testi- 
mony to  Jesus.  It  is  the  pillar  and  ground  of  the  truth. 
Like  John  the  baptist,  it  is  designed  to  bear  witness  of  the 
light.  The  testimony  which  it  bears,  respecting  the  person 
of  Christ,  as  the  Son  of  God ;  the  mission  of  Christ,  as  the 
anointed  prophet,  priest,  and  king;  and  the  work  of  Christ, 
in  his  life,  death,  burial,  resurrection,  and  ascension;  com- 
prises all  that  is  ultimately  valuable  in  the  work  of  the  minis- 
try.    This  is  its  glorious  high  calling,  by  which  it  is  made  the 

1)  See  in  Oxf.  Tr.vol.iii.  p.  155.  3)     Matt.  28 :  18,  19. 

2)  See  the  Divine  Right  of  the  4)     1  Cor.  1 :  17. 
Gospel  Ministry.  5)     2  Cor.  10  :  8. 


CHAP.  III.  ]  TAUGHT    BY    THIS    COMMISSION.  89 

power  of  God,  and  the  wisdom  of  God  unto  salvation.1  Our 
third  remark,  is,  that  there  is  no  foundation  for  the  distinc- 
tion, upon  which  prelatists  build,  between  the  povjer  of  order 
including  confirmation,  ordination,  and  the  admission  and 
exclusion  of  members ;  and  the  power  of  jurisdiction  or 
government,  including  the  cognizance  of  causes,  the  decis- 
ion of  questions  on  points  of  faith,  and  the  granting  of  indul- 
gences.2 There  is  not  a  shadow  of  support,  for  these  distinc- 
tions in  the  charter  before  us.  The  ground  and  reason  of 
the  commission  are  rested  upon  the  power  and  dominion  of 
Christ.  It  is  because  Christ  has  all  power  in  heaven  and  on 
earth ;  his  ministers  are  therefore  to  go  forth  and  publish  his 
salvation ;  to  make  known  to  men  the  nature  and  extent  of 
that  power,  and  the  glorious  majesty  of  his  kingdom.  And 
in  performing  this  work,  Christ  here  empowers  them  to  take 
all  proper  measures,  investing  them  with  a  plenitude  of 
authority,  and  comprehending  under  one  and  the  same  com- 
mission, the  right  to  teach,  and  to  govern.  Our  fourth  remark, 
is,  that  while  this  is  so,  there  is  a  definite  limit  here  fixed 
to  the  exercise  of  this  authority.  The  extent  to  which  this 
grant  of  spiritual  authority  reached,  is  defined  with  marked 
and  peculiar  emphasis.  The  power  of  the  christian  ministry 
is  bounded  by  the  commandments,  or  revealed  word  of  God. 
These  constitute  the  limit  beyond  which  it  cannot  pass,  and 
up  to  which  it  is  required  to  come.  Ministers  are  to  be 
restrained,  not  by  the  cunningly  devised  fables  of  ecclesias- 
tical traditions,  customs,  and  canons,  but  by  what  the  Lord, 
in  his  inspired  word  has  commanded.  A  '  thus  saith  the 
Lord,'  can  alone  make  any  doctrine,  rite,  or  ceremony,  a 
divine  institution,  or  a  term  of  communion  with  the  church 
universal.  He  who  believeth  whatsoever  Christ  has  com- 
manded, will  be  saved,  and  is  to  be  admitted  into  his  visible 
church.  And  in  like  manner,  the  ministers  of  Christ  are 
under  an  equally  imperative  obligation  to  teach  all  things 
whatsoever  Christ  has  commanded,  and  nothing  more,  having 
authority  neither  to  add  to,  or  to  take  from,  the  instituted  laws 
of  Christ's  house.  It  is  in  subordination,  in  humble  and 
devout  subordination  to  the  divine  word  itself,  the  church  has 
received  its  sacred  commission.3 

All  power  and  authority  being  thus  in  the  hands  of  Christ, 
he  has  undoubted  right  to  the  obedience  of  all  his  people. 

1)  See    M'Lean's   Wks.    vol.  i.  3)     Hampden's  Inaug.  Lect.  be- 
part  1,  p.  35.  fore  the  Univ.  of  Oxford,  Lond.  1S36. 

2)  See  Dr.  Elliot  on  Romanism,  ed.  4,  p.  19, 
vol.  i.  p.  459. 

12 


90  THE    COMMISSION  [  BOOK  I. 

And  since   this  commission  is  addressed   primarily  to   the 
church,  it   is,  therefore,  the  duty   of  every  member  of  it,  to 
inquire  whether  he  may  not    be  called   to    enter  upon    the 
work    of  the  ministry   by    a  course  of    preparation.      This 
authority  being  supreme,  must  also,  of  necessity,  set  aside  all 
adverse  authority,  that  would,  in  anyway,  oppose  or  alter  the 
execution    of  this   commission.       No    power,  of   any  body, 
under  any  circumstances,  can  be  of  force  sufficient  to  gain- 
say or  resist  this.     And  thus,  when  the  early  heralds  of  the 
cross  were   prohibited   from  preaching,  by  the   authority  of 
the  existing  hierarchy,  they  boldly  disclaimed  their  authority, 
saying,  '  whether  it  be  right  in  the  sight  of  God  to  hearken 
unlo  you,  more  than  unto  God,  judge  ye.'     And  again,  'wre 
ought  to  obey  God  rather  than  men.'     Nor  is  this  all ;  for 
since  the  power  here  claimed  by  Christ  is  absolute  and  com- 
plete, it  must  not  only  exclude  all  adverse  or  rival,  but  also 
all   conjunct   authority.       Christ  alone  is  king,   and   head, 
and  governor,  and  legislator,  to  his  church.     All   arbitrary, 
self-originated,    or  independent   power   in    the   ministers  of 
Christ,  is  expressly  forbidden.     Even  the  apostles,  in  execut- 
ing this  commission,  had  no  authority  to  teach  the  nations 
any  other  doctrine  than  what  they  had  received  from  Christ; 
nor  to  baptize  any  in  their  own  name,  but  only  in  His ;  neither 
were  they  to  teach  the  disciples  their  own  laws,  but '  to  observe 
all  things  whatsoever  He  had  commanded  them.'   It  remains  to 
observe,  that  by  the  same  rule,  all  discretionary  power  to  make 
the  least  alteration  either  in  Christ's  doctrine  or  ordinances,  is 
here  forbidden.     The  apostles,  although  inspired  by  the  Holy 
Spirit,  were  not  at  liberty  to  proclaim  any  trulh  as  a  doctrine 
of  Christ,  or  any  rite  as  an  instituted  order  of  Christ's  king- 
dom, unless   specially    instructed   so    to  do,  by   this  divine 
guidance.     And  every  addition  or  alteration  to  the  doctrine 
or  discipline  of  Christ's  kingdom,  introduced  since  their  day, 
by  the  authority  of  the  church,  is  an  open  denial  of  the  truth, 
that  all  aulhority  is  resident  in    Christ  only,   and    that   the 
church  has  no  other  office  or  duty  than  '  to  teach  whatsoever 
he  has  commanded.'1     Lastly,  it  is  to  be  observed,  that  what- 
ever authority  and  power,  beyond  that  which  characterized  the 
apostles,  in  their  extraordinary  office,  is  here  granted  to  any, 
is  as  certainly  granted  to  all  the  ministers  of  Christ.     For 
the  promise  here  annexed  is  evidently  addressed  to  persons, 
and  must  apply  to  all  succeeding  ministers  to  the  end  of  the 
world  who  shall  faithfully  prosecute  their  work,  in  accordance 

1)     See  these  views  presented  in  M'Lean's  Wks.  vol.  i.  p.  6,  &c. 


CHAP.  III.  ]  WAS    GIVEN    TO    PRESBYTERS.  91 

with  these  instructions,  and  in  subserviency  to  these  limita- 
tions. All,  therefore,  who  are  called  to  the  work  of  teaching 
in  the  church  by  the  inward  call  of  Christ's  spirit,  and  by  the 
outward  call  of  those  who  are  appointed  to  this  duty  by 
the  church,  are  clothed  with  all  the  power  here  secured  by 
Christ  to  his  church,  for  the  work  of  the  ministry  and  the 
edification  of  the  body  of  Christ. 

§  6.     This  comm  ission  applies  to  presbyters  and  not  to  prelates. 

The  all-important  question  then  is,  whether  this  commis- 
sion applies  to  presbyters,  or  to  prelates,  presbyters,  and  dea- 
cons, as  the  triumvirate  orders  of  the  christian  ministry,  since 
it  is  an  admitted  canon  that  'no  constitutional  principle  can 
be  modified  except  by  the  party  that  ordained  it.'1  And 
since  it  is  not  pretended  that  Christ  issued  any  later,  or  more 
full  commission  for  the  christian  ministry,  is  there,  we  ask, 
any  authority  to  be  found  in  this,  for  dividing  that  ministry 
into  three  orders,  as  essentially  distinct  from  one  another  as 
the  several  castes  of  India.     '  Every  office,'  says  archbishop 

Potter,  '  implies  power And  as  there  are  these 

three  distinct  offices  so  must  there  be  distinct  powers  appro- 
priated to  every  one  of  them,  for  as  the  notion  of  an  office 
implies  power,  so  distinct  offices  do  necessarily  imply  distinct 
powers.'2  It  follows,  therefore,  that  for  these  orders,  and 
their  distinct  powers,  there  must  be  special  commissions,  or 
special  provisions  in  the  same  commission.  It  is  not  to  be 
imagined  that,  they  can  be  so  completely  distinct,  and  at  the 
same  time  so  essential  and  so  evidently  revealed,  and  yet  all 
equally  authorized  by  one  and  the  same  commission,  which 
makes  no  difference/but  addresses  itself  to  all,  and  prescribes 
to  all  one  and  the  same  functions  of  teaching  and  gov- 
erning the  church.  Let  it  not  be  said  that  presbyters  and 
deacons  were  afterwards  introduced.  To  this  we  reply,  that 
whereas  an  order  of  deacons  were  afterwards  appointed  by 
special  divine  direction,  their  duties  and  qualifications  were 
also  very  carefully  prescribed.  And  so  also  are  those  of 
bishops  or  presbyters,  the  teaching  order  in  the  church.  But 
nowhere  have  we  any  such  delineation  of  either  the  charac- 
ter, work,  or  qualifications  of  prelates,  the  most  essential  order 
of  the  three  prelatical  castes.  Neither  let  it  be  said,  that 
while  other  ministers   besides    the    apostles  were   included 

1)  Professor  Ogilby  on  Lay  Bap-  2)  On  Ch.  Govt.  p.  197. 

tism,  pp.  31  and  20. 


92  THE    COMMISSION  [BOOK  I. 

under  this  commission,  that  nevertheless  the  apostles  were 
distinguished  as  the  first  order  by  their  preeminent  endow- 
ments. This  will  not  serve  the  cause  of  prelacy,  or  prove  the 
existence  of  three  orders  in  the  ministry.  It  is  undoubtedly 
true  that  to  the  twelve,  whom  our  Lord  had  selected  as  his 
witnesses,  many  wonderful  gifts,  not  enjoyed  by  any  since 
their  death,  were  bestowed  —  the  gifts,  for  instance,  of  in- 
spiration, of  tongues,  of  miracles,  of  knowledge,  of  discern- 
ing spirits,  of  extraordinary  boldness,  the  authoritative  de- 
termination of  all  questions  of  faith  and  practice,  and, 
above  all,  the  exclusive  power  of  conferring  these  gifts  on 
others.1  The  apostles  were,  as  we  have  seen,  Christ's  repre- 
sentatives and  ambassadors,  so  that  their  doctrine,  being 
divinely  communicated,  has  been  inwrought  with  that  of 
Christ  himself,  into  the  very  foundation  of  our  faith.  Such 
gifts  constituted  one  feature  of  the  opening  dispensation  of 
the  gospel  and  supplied  the  want  of  established  rules  and 
ordinary  privileges.  They  were,  therefore,  granted  to  all  the 
first  heralds  of  the  cross,  and  to  many  also  of  the  primitive 
converts.2  Such  was  the  dispensation  of  the  all-wise  Head 
of  the  church,  who  having  all  power,  made  every  thing  con- 
spire to  promote  its  establishment,  progress,  perpetuity,  and 
glory.  It  was  fully  competent  for  Him  who  commissioned 
his  ministers,  to  make  what  distinctions  among  them  he 
pleased,  granting  to  them  severally  his  spiritual  gifts  according 
to  his  sovereign  will.  And  while  there  was  but  one  office  of 
the  ministry,  and  one  end  to  be  attained  by  it,  and  one  Spirit 
by  which  it  was  made  effectual  to  that  end,  we  can  see  the 
wisdom  of  Christ  in  fitting  out  his  servants  with  those  qual- 
ifications which  the  existing  necessities  of  the  church  re- 
quired. Accordingly,  we  find  that  in  the  age  of  inspiration, 
when  the  foundations  of  the  church  were  being  laid,  the 
ministers  of  Christ  were  supplied  with  various  kinds  of  ex- 
traordinary endowments  and  in  various  degrees.  Thus  do 
we  read  of  apostles,  prophets,  evangelists,  and  others.  '  Now,' 
says  the  apostle,  '  there  are  diversities  of  gifts  but  the  same 
Spirit,  and  there  are  differences  of  administration  (or  different 
modes  in  which  the  work  of  the  ministry  is  carried  on)  but 
the  same  Lord,  (by  whom  they  are  all  equally  appointed  and 
from  whom  their  several  powers  are  received.)  And  there 
are  diversities  of  operations,  (or  effects  produced,)  but  it  is  the 
same  God  which  worketh  all  in  all.     But  the  manifestation 

1 )  See  Lord  Barrington's  Essay  2)  It  would  appear  that  they  were 

on  the  Apostles,  in  Wks.  vol.  ii.  generally  bestowed  on  all  the  mem- 

bers of  the  Corinthian  church. 


CHAP.  III.]  WAS    GIVEN    TO    PRESBYTERS.  93 

of  the  Spirit  (in  these  several  varieties)  is  given  to  every  man 
(for  no  other  purpose  and  in  no  other  degree  than  as  may- 
best)  profit  (and  edify  the  whole  body  of)  the  church.' 
(1  Cor.  12:  4 — :7.)  The  apostle  proceeds  to  exemplify 
these  principles,  by  an  enumeration  of  the  various  gifts  then 
commonly  bestowed.  Now  as  all  these  various  '  ministers ' 
received  their  peculiar  character  from  their  peculiar  powers, 
and  were  distinguished  not  in  the  end  aimed  at,  but  in  the 
manner  in  which  its  attainment  was  pursued,  it  follows,  that 
since  these  gifts  were  extraordinary  and  are  not  promised  in 
continuance  to  the  church,  these  differing  administrations 
were  also  designed  to  cease  and  merge  into  one  common 
ministry.  Such  orders  cannot  be  succeeded  by  any  perma- 
nent officers  in  the  church,  in  what  thus  distinguished  them 
as  orders ;  but  they  may  all  be  succeeded  in  that  ministry 
which  was  common  to  them  all ;  for  whose  accomplishment 
they  were  variously  endowed  ;  and  in  which  they  were 
known  as  stewards,  ministers,  presbyters,  and  bishops.  We 
are  therefore  taught,  as  we  have  seen,  by  the  apostle  Paul, 
that  the  very  purpose  for  which  the  ascended  Saviour  gave 
some  to  be  apostles,  and  some  to  be  evangelists,  and  some  to 
be  prophets,  furnished  with  miraculous  powers  adapted  to 
their  extraordinary  offices,  was  that  they  might  prepare 
christians  for  the  ordinary  ministry  of  pastors  or  teachers, 
who  were  to  be  the  standing  ministry,  to  preside  over  and 
instruct  the  church.  By  their  means,  in  fact,  the  regular  and 
permanent  ministry  of  the  church  was  to  be  instituted,  and 
the  church  led  on  from  its  infant  state,  to  a  full,  organized 
maturity.1 

In  a  word,  there  is  confessedly  but  this  one  commission 
given  by  our  Lord.  All,  therefore,  who  are  truly  ministers 
of  Christ,  are  so  by  virtue  of  this  commission  ;  and  since  it 
addresses  itself  but  to  one  general  class,  and  conveys  one 
general  power,  of  course  all  who  are  commissioned  by  it, 
have  a  full,  and  equal  right  to  all  the  authority  it  contains. 
If,  therefore,  this  commission  does  not  extend  to  presbyters, 
then,  of  necessity,  presbyters  are  not  ministers  of  Christ  at  all, 
and  can  have  no  authority  from  Him  ;  but  since  they  are  un- 
deniably ministers,  they  must  be  possessed  of  all  the  authority 
conveyed  by  this  commission.  For,  to  use  the  language  of 
Wickliffe,  'the  power  of  priesthood  is  a  matter  which  does 
not  exist  in  degree,  either  more  or  less.' 

That  presbyters  constitute  a  certain  and  divinely  instituted 

1)  Eph.  4 :  11  —  14.     See  Doddridge  in  loco,  and  chap.  i.  p.  33. 


94  THE    COMMISSION  [BOOK  I. 

class  of  ministers,  is  universally  admitted.  We  read  of  their 
ordination  in  every  city.  They  are  identified  with  bishops, 
and  we  find  full  directions  given  as  to  their  qualifications.1 
We  are  also  certain,  as  we  shall  have  occasion  to  show,  that 
they  preached  and  took  the  oversight  of  churches,  and  thus 
discharged  a  part,  at  least,  of  the  duties  here  prescribed. 
The  claim,  therefore,  of  the  presbyterate  to  divine  right  and 
institution,  is  beyond  controversy. 

But  it  is  also  true  that  they  are  included  in  this  commis- 
sion. These  words  of  Christ,  and  the  other  passages  which 
are  adduced  by  Romanists,  to  establish  the  supremacy  of 
Peter,  are  shown  by  the  fathers  to  have  been  intended  for  all 
other  apostles  and  pastors,  and  to  be  equally  addressed  to  all 
the  ministers  of  Christ.2  The  most  prevalent  opinion  in  the 
Romish  church,  is,  that  the  episcopate  is  not  a  distinct  order 
from  the  presbyterate,  but  a  mere  extension  of  it.  To  this 
class  belong  the  master  of  the  Sentences,  Bonaventura, 
Thomas  Aquinas,  Pope  Cornelius,  Gregory  the  Great, 
Alcuin,  and  the  Council  of  Trent,  &c.3  The  term  priesthood, 
is  considered  by  them  as  generic,  embracing  under  it  all 
grades  of  priests,  even  archbishops.4  The  functions  of  the 
priest,  they  regard  as  embracing  the  administration  of  the 
sacraments,  and  celebration  of  mass ;  blessing  both  per- 
sons and  things;  presiding  over,  and  governing  the  people 
and  inferior  clergy,  of  course  under  control  of  the  bishop; 
preaching;  and  remitting  or  retaining  sins  in  the  sacra- 
ment of  penance.5  '  And  hence  it  is,'  says  Bishop  Bever- 
idge,6  '  that,  according  to  the  practice  of  the  apostolic  and 
catholic  church,  though  not  in  that  of  deacons,  yet  in  the 
ordination  of  priests,  as  you  will  see  presently,  the  bishop, 
when  he  lays  his  hand  severally  upon  every  one  that  receives 
that  order,  saith,  '  Receive  the  Holy  Ghost  for  the  office  and 
work  of  a  priest  in  the  church  of  God,  now  committed  unto 
thee  by  the  imposition  of  our  hands ;  whose  sins  thou  dost 
forgive,  they  are  forgiven ;  and  whose  sins  thou  dost  retain, 
they  are  retained.'  'Where  we  may  observe,  that  although 
some  olher  words  are  inserted  to  determine  and  distinguish 
the  office  committed  to  them,  yet  all  the  same  words  are 
repeated  which  our  Lord  himself  used  at  the  ordination  of 

1)  Acts  14:  23.     Tit.  1:  5,  &c.  there  was  but  one  priesthood  under 

2)  See  in  Palmer  on  the  Ch.  vol.  Moses.'     On  the  priesthood,  pp.  117, 
ii.  part  vii.  ch.  1 ,  p.  48S,  and  references.  145. 

3)  See  Elliott  on  Romanism,  vol.  4)     Ibid,  p.  457. 
i.  pp.   451,   452,   453,  457,  458.     See  5)     Ibid,  p.  458. 

also,  Saravia  ;  'There  be,'  says  he,  'but  6)     Wks.  vol.  ii.  p.  123. 

one  Gospel  ministry  under  Christ,  as 


CHAP.  III.]  WAS    GIVEN    TO    PRESBYTERS.  95 

his  apostles ;  which  the  catholic  church  always  judged  neces- 
sary, not  only  in  imitation  of  our  blessed  Saviour,  but  like- 
wise because  that  the  persons,  who  are  ordained  priests  in 
his  church,  are  to  preach  the  same  word,  administer  the  same 
sacraments,  and  exercise  the  same  power  in  the  censures  of 
the  church,  as  the  apostles  themselves  did.  And,  therefore,  it 
is  necessary  that  they  should  be  endued  with  the  same  spirit, 
ordained  alter  the  same  manner,  and  intrusted  with  the  same 
powers  of  the  keys,  as  the  apostles  themselves  were.' 

To  this  judgment  of  the  universal  church,  is  to  be  added 
that  of  the  English  church.  This  commission  of  our  Lord, 
was  embodied  in  the  form  of  ordination  for  presbyters, 
in  the  days  of  Edward  VI,  where  it  remained  until  the 
year  1662,  when  the  convocation,  for  the  first  time,  intro- 
duced distinct  forms  for  the  ordination  of  bishops  and 
presbyters.  Now,  either  prelatists  derive  the  order  and 
functions  of  presbyters  from  this  commission,  or  they  do 
not.  If  they  do,  then  must  presbyters  have  a  right  to  all 
the  powers  contained  in  it.  It  knows  of  no  restriction,  or 
subdivision,  or  parcelling  out  of  its  prerogatives.  It  includes, 
also,  we  have  seen,  the  powers  of  ordination  and  jurisdic- 
tion.1 But  if  presbyters  are  ministers  of  Christ,  and  must 
be  such  by  virtue  of  this  commission,  then  is  it  as  certain 
that  they  are  entitled  to  all  the  privileges  conveyed  by  this 
commission,  and  to  this  right  of  ordination  and  government 
among  the  rest.  There  is  no  clause  of  restriction,  either  in 
this  commission,  or  elsewhere,  by  which  all  its  powers  are 
lodged  primarily  in  the  hands  of  one  order,  and  through 
them,  in  part,  communicated  to  two  others.  The  scriptures 
know  of  no  such  officer  as  a  presbyter,  with  half  the  powers 
of  the  ministry,  and  a  deacon  with  one  third ;  and  both  in 
vassalage  to  a  prelate.  Such  officers  are  no  scripture  minis- 
ters at  all,  and  these  orders,  as  they  exist  in  the  prelacy,  are 
either  of  human  institution,  or  they  are  presbyter  bishops, 
arbitrarily  deprived  of  the  just  exercise  of  their  original  and 
inherent  rights.  On  the  other  hand,  do  prelatists  maintain 
that  presbyters  are  not  authorized  by  this  commission  ;  then 
we  ask  them  to  produce  some  other  commission  for  the  office 
of  presbyters,  as  an  inferior  order  to  bishops,  from  any  part 
of  the  canonical  scriptures.  Such  commission  is,  they  fully 
and  strongly  affirm,  absolutely  necessary  to  any  order  claim- 
ing to  be  of  divine  right.  But  no  such  charter  has  ever  been 
produced.     A  new  one,  therefore,  has  been  framed,  differing 

1)    See  Nelson  on  Fest.  and  Fasts,  in  Oxf.  Tr.  vol.  iii.  p.  155. 


96  THE    COMMISSION  [BOOK  I. 

at  different  times,  according  to  the  superstitious  views  of  the 
church,  framed  in  words  which  are  not  only  not  in  Scripture, 
but  in  violent  opposition  to  it,  professing  to  give  the  Holy 
Ghost,  by  the  imposition  of  hands,  and  this  too,  absolutely, 
and  in  all  cases,  even  though  the  minister  may  be  a  Simon 
Magns,  and  the  recipient  a  Judas.1  The  office  of  presbyter, 
and  a  fortiori  of  preaching  deacons,  is  thus,  according  to 
prelatists,  without  any  divine  commission.  But  as  they 
themselves  assert,  that  they  are,  nevertheless,  of  divine  insti- 
tution, we  are  forced  to  the  conclusion,  that  the  order 
of  presbyters,  alone,  is  sanctioned  by  this  ministerial 
charter.2 

If  this  position  has  been  sustained  to  the  satisfaction  of  the 
reader,  then  is  it  altogether  unnecessary  to  delay,  in  proving 
that  prelates,  as  a  superior  order  to  this  established  rank  of 
ministers,  cannot  be  included  under  this  commission.  If,  as 
bishop  Heber  affirms,  prelates  '  have  a  commission  derived 
from  the  apostles  to  preach  the  gospel  different  from '  pres- 
byters,3 they  are  called  upon  to  produce  it,  since  there  can  be 
no  distinct  offices  without  distinct  powers,  which  must  be 
appropriated  by  distinct  and  undeniable  commission.4  Now 
most  assuredly  such  authority  cannot  be  found  in  this  last 
commission  of  Christ,  which  is  the  only  full  and  final  charter 
of  the  ministry  in  all  ages,  even  to  the  end  of  the  world. 
Neither  is  such  a  warrant  to  be  discovered  in  any  subsequent 
directions  for  the  appointment  of  ministers.  No  passage  can 
be  shown  in  all  the  New  Testament,  in  which  it  is  said  that 
some  are  to  be  ordained  to  the  first  order  as  prelates ;  and 
some  to  the  second,  as  presbyters  only;  and  some  to  the 
third,  as  deacons.  When  Paul  describes  the  office  of  a  bishop, 
he  does  no  more  than  enlarge  upon  this  commission  given 
by  our  Saviour.  And  since  the  office  described  by  Paul,  is 
confessedly  that  of  the  presbyterate,  this  order,  and  this  alone, 
must  be  that  referred  to  by  Christ. 

At  the  hazard  of  being  tedious,  we  would  corroborate  our 
position,  by  a  reference  to  the  contradictory  absurdities  to 
which  this  prelatic  theory  leads.  Thus,  we  are  told  by  arch- 
bishop Potter,5  that  the  plenitude  of  the  apostolic  power  was 
given  at  three  different  times,  and  that  at  each  time,  the  apos- 
tles were  commissioned  to  preach  and  to  baptize.6     This  is 

1)  See  the  Form.  '  Receive  thou  •"•)   Sermons  in  England,  p.  218. 
the  Holy  Ghost,'  &c.  in  Book  of  Com-            4)  Potter  on  Ch.  Govt.  p.  197. 
mon  Prayer,  and  the  Romish  ordinals.  5)   On  Ch.  Govt.  p.  58. 

2)  See   Ayton's    Constit.  of  the  6)  Preaching  he   regards  as   the 
Ch.  pp.  391,  392.  highest  function.     See  pp.  203,,  204. 


CHAP.  III.]  NOT    GIVEN    TO    PRELATES.  97 

the  comprehension  of  their  duties,  for  discharging  which,  they 
were  miraculously  endowed.  There  is  not  a  syllable  in  any 
or  all  of  these  alleged  commissions,  even  on  the  archbishop's 
interpretation,  about  dioceses,  or  government  of  presbyters, 
or  imposition  of  hands,  or  the  transmission  of  the  sacred  gift 
to  an  endless  succession.  Let  us,  then,  pass  on  to  the  second 
order,  and  what  is  represented  to  be  their  especial  function, 
by  which  they  are  distinguished  from  the  first?  Why  it  is 
their  duty,  we  are  told,  to  preach  and  to  administer  the  sacra- 
ments; that  is,  to  do  just  what  the  apostles,  by  their  three 
commissions,  were  empowered  to  do,  while  the  great  modern 
function  of  presbyters,  that  is,  an  implicit  obedience  and  sub- 
mission to  the  prelatic  order,  is  never  once  even  hinted  at. 
But  our  amazement  increases,  when  we  pass  on  to  the  third 
order  of  deacons.  '  These,'  says  Potter,  '  are  inferior  minis- 
ters,'1 while,  as  Mr.  Palmer  teaches,  they  are  not  a  spiritual 
order  at  all.2  But  what  are  the  distinct  powers  of  this  inferior 
order,  subordinating  them  to  the  two  higher  ?  '  They  are,' 
says  Potter,  '  attendants  and  ministers,  to  preach  the  gospel 
and  to  baptize,'  which  offices  they  have  executed  '  since  our 
Lord's  ascension.'3  Now  these  are  the  identical  functions, 
represented  by  this  same  author,  as  the  peculiar  and  exclusive 
powers  of  the  apostles,  and  of  the  presbyters.  He  assures  us, 
that  'the  principal  business'  of  the  apostles  was  '  to  preach.'4 
They  were  also  to  baptize.  What  are  we  then  to  think,  when 
we  now  learn  that '  baptizing  is  an  inferior  ministry,' '  deputed  ' 
by  the  first  order  '  to  those  whose  proper  business  it  was  to 
baptize.'5 

We  put  it  to  any  reasonable  mind,  whether  it  is  possible  to 
believe  that  Christ,  by  divine  inspiration,  instituted  in  his 
church  three  orders  of  ministers,  essentially  distinct  in  their 
nature,  offices,  and  gifts,  and  essential  to  the  very  being  and 
perpetuity  of  the  church,  and  that,  after  all,  he  has  declared, 
that  those  are  the  ordinary  and  principal  duties  of  the  first 
order,  which  he  has  made  the  duties  of  the  second,  and  also 
of  the  third  ;  and  that  he  has,  at  the  same  time,  left  altogether 
un mentioned,  those  prerogatives  by  which  the  first  are  now 
said  to  be  characterized  by  divine  right  ?  And  more  than 
this,  can  any  man  believe,  that  when  Christ  thus  commis- 
sioned these  three  orders,  the  same  duties,  when  enjoined 
upon  the  second  and  third  orders,  are  inferior,  which,  when 
performed  by  the  first  order,  constitute  '  their  principal  busi- 

1)  Ibid.  p.  67.  4)  Ibid,  p.  68. 

2)  On  the  Ch.  vol.  ii.  5)  Ibid,  pp.  67,  68. 

3)  Potter  on  Ch.  Govt.  p.  58. 

13 


98  THE    COMMISSION    GIVEN  [BOOK  J. 

ness  ? '  And  further  still,  that  the  ministry  of  baptism,  which 
is  deputed  to  an  inferior  order,  and  that  not  a  spiritual  one, 
should,  nevertheless,  be  the  most  vital  and  efficacious  ordinance 
the  church  has  to  dispense,  since  all  its  recipients  are  assured 
that  thereby  they  are  born  again,  regenerated  by  the  Holy 
Ghost,  justified,  and  made  christians?  Can  any  sane  mind 
believe  all  these  contradictory  declarations,  to  be  verily  and  in 
truth  the  simple  and  pure  doctrine  and  institution  of  God  ? 
It  is  impossible.  And  when,  in  addition  to  all  this,  we  re- 
member, that  in  the  Romish  church  there  are  now  eight,  nine, 
or  ten  orders,  all  claiming  the  sanction  of  this  divine  commis- 
sion;1 that  in  the  single  order  of  presbyters,  there  are  ten 
subdivided  orders;2  and  under  that  of  bishops  seven  orders 
more  ;3  how  can  we  avoid  regarding  the  whole  theory  as 
the  offspring  of  human  vanity,  begot  upon  pride  and  am- 
bition ? 

This  commission  determines  of  itself  the  whole  contro- 
versy. Ministers  do  not  receive  their  office  or  power  from 
the  ordainer,  but  immediately  and  solely  from  Christ.  The 
ordainers  can  do  nothing  more  than  designate  the  person  as 
qualified  to  fill  the  office ;  and  ministerially,  as  the  servants 
of  Christ,  deliver  to  him  the  possession  of  office  and  author- 
ity by  a  solemn  rite  or  sign.  The  office,  however,  and  the 
power,  are  fixed,  certain,  immutable,  and  of  divine  institution. 
And  it  is  not  in  the  power  of  any  church,  or  of  the  whole 
church,  to  alter  that  institution,  or  to  say  that  to  one  order  of 
men  this  power  shall  be  given  in  its  plenitude,  and  to  other 
orders  it  shall  be  given  only  in  part ;  nor  can  any  pretended 
rules  or  canons  affect  that  right  and  title,  which  descends,  by 
divine  gift,  to  every  duly  commissioned  minister  of  Jesus 
Christ. 

That  such  was  the  understanding  of  our  Lord's  commis- 
sion, by  those  to  whom  it  was  originally  given,  is  made 
evident  to  us,  by  the  organization  of  the  church  in  Jerusalem, 
as  constituted  by  these  same  apostles,  and,  as  we  must  believe, 
under  the  immediate  guidance  of  Christ  himself.  For  we  are 
informed,  that  the  whole  number  of  the  apostles  continued,  for 
some  twelve  years,  even  after  churches  had  been  established 
elsewhere,  (see  Acts  8:1,  25,)  to  govern  this  church  with 
equal  power,  having  other  presbyters  associated  with  them, 
who  sat  and  acted  with  them,  (see  Ads  15  :)  as  coequal  mem- 
bers of  the  ecclesiastical  senate.4     They  thus  gave  us,  under 

1 )  Elliott  on  Roman,  p.  451.  1 1   See  this  admitted  by  Potter,  on 

2)  Ibid,  p.  459.  Ch.    Govt.   c.    3,  p.   107,    Eng.    ed. ; 

3)  Ibid,  p.  460.  Goode's  Div.  Rule  of  Faith,  vol.  ii.  p. 

Gl,  Eng.  ed. 


CHAP.  III.]  TO    PRESBYTERS    ONLY.  99 

their  own  hand,  and  by  direct  inspiration,  a  model  or  platform 
for  the  government  of  all  other  churches.  Of  this  body,  Peter 
probably  acted  as  moderator  or  president,  until  after  their 
dispersion,  when  James  appears  to  have  acted  in  this  ca- 
pacity. Now  it  is  a  fundamental  maxim  in  prelacy,  that  there 
can  be  but  one  prelate  in  any  one  church  or  city  at  one  time.1 
The  apostles,  therefore,  while  in  their  extraordinary  endow- 
ments they  were  superior  to  all  presbyters,  were,  in  their  ordi- 
nary ministerial  character,  presbyters,  and  acted  as  such  in 
the  constitution  of  the  first  and  mother  church  of  all  that 
should  ever  arise.  They  have  thus  put  this  matter  beyond 
controversy,  with  all  reasonable  minds,  and  proved  that  this 
commission  of  Christ  authorizes  only  one  order,  as  permanent 
ministers  in  Christ's  church ;  that  this  is  the  order  of  pres- 
byters ;  and  that  the  whole  power  and  authority  flowing  from 
this  charter,  both  as  it  regards  teaching,  governing,  and 
ordaining,  is  vested  in  this  divinely  constituted  order.2  And 
thus  have  we  given  a  demonstration,  as  far  as  the  subject  is 
capable  of  it,  that  the  government  of  the  church,  as  instituted 
by  Christ,  and  as  understood  by  his  apostles,  was  not  mon- 
archical like  prelacy,  nor  democratical,  like  pure  Congrega- 
tionalism, but  republican,  like  presbytery ;  and  that  presbyters 
are  the  true  and  only  valid  successors  to  the  apostles  in  the 
ordinary  ministry  of  the  gospel.  And  if  prelatists  will  plead 
for  any  subsequent  alteration  of  this  divine  model,  we  hope 
they  will  make  the  matter  of  fact  and  the  warrant  for  such 
alteration,  as  plain  and  clear  as  this  first  institution  itself.3 
We  contend  for  that  form  and  order  which  was  undoubtedly 
the  original  institution  of  our  Saviour ;  while  prelatists  contend 
for  that  which  was,  they  say,  the  result  of  a  subsequent  change, 
for  which  they  can,  at  best,  give  no  more  than  probable 
reasons.  And  who  is  most  likely  to  be  on  the  Lord's  side  in 
this  controversy,  may  therefore  easily  appear  to  any  one  who 
seeks  the  truth. 

1)    See     authorities     given      in  2)  See  Peirce,  ibid,  p.  42. 

Peirce's  Vind.  of  Presb.  Ord.  part  2,  3)  See  ibid,  p.  44. 

p.  33,  &c. 


CHAPTER  IV 


THE  CLAIMS  OF  PRESBYTERY  TO  THE  MINISTERIAL  SUCCES- 
SION SUSTAINED  BY  AN  APPEAL  TO  THE  APOS- 
TOLIC  AGE  OF  THE  CHURCH. 


§  1.     The  powers  and  titles  attributed  to  the  ministry  by  the 

apostles. 

'  It  is  evident  to  all  men,'  says  the  prelatic  church,  diligent- 
ly reading  the  holy  scriptures  and  ancient  authors,  'that 
there  have  been,  from  the  apostles'  time,  three  orders  of  min- 
isters in  Christ's  church,  bishops,  priests,  and  deacons.'  Now 
for  these  three  orders  we  have  diligently  but  fruitlessly  inquired 
in  the  order  of  the  church  during  our  Lord's  ministry,  and 
as  he  left  it  when  he  ascended  up  far  above  all  heavens,  hav- 
ing given  to  it  that  broad  charter  and  commission  by  which 
it  is  to  be  guided  to  the  end  of  time.  There  was  but  one 
order  of  ministers,  with  perfectly  similar  functions,  appointed 
by  our  Lord  during  the  period  of  his  own  ministration ;  and 
when  he  had  solemnly  instituted  the  christian  church  and 
inaugurated  the  christian  ministry,  he  commissioned  but  one 
order,  in  perpetuity.  It  remains,  therefore,  to  inquire  whether 
there  is  any  sufficient  evidence  to  be  found  for  these  three 
orders  in  the  subsequent  organization  and  extension  of  the 
christian  church.  We  have  in  the  New  Testament,  an  inspired 
record  of  the  apostolic  procedure  in  the  propagation  of 
Christianity,  with  twenty-one  epistles  addressed  to  particular 
churches;  to  the  churches  generally;  to  ministers;  and  to 
christians.  We  may  well,  therefore,  and  reasonably  expect, 
that,  with  diligent  search,  it  will  be  made  plain  to  us,  that 
these  three  orders,  of  bishops,  priests,  and  deacons,  were 
instituted  by  the  apostles  in  all  the  early  churches  ;  that  where 
they  were  not  already  found,  they  were  speedily  consecrated; 
and  that  full  directions  are  given  by  which  their  separate 


CHAP.  IV.]  TITLES    OF    MINISTERS.  101 

spheres  of  duty  and  proprieties  of  office  may  be  clearly  des- 
ignated, and  the  present  unhappy  divisions  of  the  visible 
church,  on  this  account,  be  effectually  healed. 

But  is  there  any  such  revelation  made  to  us  in  the  book  of 
the  Lord  —  in  these  apostolic  canons?  That  numerous 
churches  were  organized  in  various  countries,  and  under  divine 
guidance,  we  are  there  informed.  That  the  apostles,  and  other 
extraordinary  officers,  who  were  supernaturally  endowed,  and 
therefore  of  a  temporary  order,  were  employed  in  laying  the 
foundations  deep  and  wide,  of  that  building  which  will  only 
be  completed  when  the  last  ransomed  sinner  shall  be  added  as 
a  top-stone,  with  shoutings  of  grace,  grace  unto  it ;  of  this,  also, 
we  have  there  distinct  information.  That  an  order  of  minis- 
ters, according  to  Christ's  commission,  was  set  up  in  every 
place,  when  the  Lord  opened  up  the  way  by  the  conversion 
of  sinners,  and  that  to  them  were  committed  the  keys  of  the 
kingdom  of  heaven,  to  be  handed  down  in  perpetuity  to  all 
their  successors  ;  this,  also,  is  not  left  ambiguous  to  any  dili- 
gent inquirer.  But  that  these  several  keys,  in  the  full  pleni- 
tude of  episcopal  authority,  were,  solemnly  and  by  divine  in- 
spiration, given  to  one  of  three  distinct  orders,  to  whom  was 
delegated  the  exclusive  authority  to  use  them,  and  to  grant 
them  in  partibus  to  other  two  orders  subordinate  to  their  own, 
or  that  this  order  was  to  transmit  in  an  unbroken,  lineal  suc- 
cession, this  sacred  and  mysterious  gift ;  all  this,  with  what- 
ever diligence  we  examine,  we  find  not  written  in  the  Book 
of  ihe  Lord. 

That  the  ministers  of  the  church  are,  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment, called  bishops,  emaxonoi,  in  reference  to  their  duty  of 
taking  oversight,  is  undoubted,  and  this  term  is  certainly 
to  be  retained  and  had  in  reverence,  as  an  official  designation 
of  those  who  are  over  the  churches  in  the  Lord,  and  who  are 
to  be  very  highly  esteemed,  honored,  and  loved  for  their 
work's  sake.  And  thus  are  our  ministers  denominated  bish- 
ops, throughout  our  standards.  But  these  same  ministers  are 
also  called  by  the  name  of  presbyters,  in  the  New  Testament, 
in  reference  to  their  authority,  seniority,  and  preeminence  in 
the  church  ;  and  by  various  other  terms,  descriptive  of  their 
several  functions,  as  stewards,  ministers,  shepherds,  ambassa- 
dors, and  so  on. 


102  PRESBYTERS    ALONE    FOUND  [BOOK  I. 


§  2.     There  ivas  but  one  order  of  permanent  ministers  institu- 
tuted  in  the  apostolic  churches. 

Besides  those  officers  mentioned  in  the  New  Testament, 
who  were  supernaturally  qualified  for  the  extraordinary  de- 
mands of  the  nascent  church,  and  who,  therefore,  as  apostles, 
evangelists,  and  prophets,  had  no  successors,  there  is,  we  af- 
firm, but  one  order  of  christian  ministry  to  be  found  institu- 
ted in  the  apostolic  churches,  and  made  permanent  in  the 
church  of  God;  together  with  two  other  orders  of  officers, 
probably  that  of  ruling  elders,  and  certainly  that  of  deacons. 
Neither  of  these,  however,  belong  to  the  ministerial  order. 

Some  of  the  reasons  upon  which  this  judgment  is  based, 
we  shall  now  present.  And  first,  we  remark,  that  for  the  in- 
stitution of  presbyters,  we  have  most  express  and  frequent 
authority,  but  for  any  separate  and  distinct  organization  of  a 
higher  order,  as  of  permanent  and  ordinary  standing,  we  have 
no  such  authority.  It  is  indisputably  true,  both  from  apos- 
tolic example  and  apostolic  precept,  that  presbyters  are  by 
divine  right  a  fixed,  standing,  and  perpetual  order  of  christian 
ministers.1  Neither  do  we  find  any  other  order  than  that  of 
presbyters,  or  bishops,  in  the  churches  as  organized  by  the 
apostles.  They  ordained  them  presbyters,  and  only  such,  as 
far  as  we  are  informed,  in  every  city.  Acts,  14:  23.  When 
Paul  took  his  final  leave  of  the  church  at  Ephesus,  he  dele- 
gated all  ministerial  powers  and  authority  to  the  presbyters, 
whom  he  expressly  denominates  bishops.  Acts,  20 :  17,  &c. 
In  the  church  at  Philippi,  there  were  only  two  kinds  of  officers, 
'  the  bishops,'  or  presbyters,  for  there  was  a  plurality  of  them 
in  one  church,  '  and  the  deacons.'  Phil.  1 :  1.  This  was 
about  the  year  A.  D.  62  or  63.  Thus,  Peter,  in  addressing  all 
the  churches  scattered  over  the  extensive  countries  of  Pontus, 
Galatia,  Cappadocia,  Asia,  and  Bithynia,  exhorts  '  the  pres- 
byters who  were  among  them  to  feed,'  that  is,  to  take  the 
oversight,  as  bishops  of  'the  flock  of  God.'  1  Pet.  5  :  1,  2. 
So  also,  James,  in  writing  to  all  the  churches  formed  among 
the  twelve  tribes  that  were  scattered  abroad,  makes  mention 
of  presbyters,  and  of  presbyters  alone.  James  5  :  14.  And 
thus,  also,  Paul,  in  speaking  to  the  Hebrew  christians,  exhorts 
them  to  '  remember  them  that  have  the  rule  over  them,'  that 
is, '  who  have  spoken  unto  you,'  or  preached  to  you, '  the  word 

1)  See     1  Timothy,  .r):  17;  Acts,     Goode's  Div.  Rule  of  Faith,  vol.  ii,  pp 
20:  17,  28;  Acts,  11 :  30:  16:  4;  21 :     Gl,  62,  Eng.  ed. 
18;    1   Tim. 4:  11;  2  John,  1.      See 


CHAP.  IV.]  IN    THE    APOSTOLIC    CHURCHES.  103 

of  God.'  '  Obey  them  that  have  the  rule  over  you,  and  sub- 
mit yourselves ;  for  they  watch  for  your  souls,  as  they  that 
must  give  account ; '  thus  expressively  designating  presbyters 
and  their  work,  but  having  no  allusion  to  prelates  and  their 
duties.  Heb.  13:  7,  17.  *  We  might  also  refer  to  those  pas- 
sages in  which  full  and  explicit  directions  are  given  as  to  the 
nature  and  qualifications  of  the  ministry,  as,  for  instance, 
1  Tim.  3 :  1-8,  Titus  1 :  5-9,  and  1  Pet.  5 :  1-5,  where  we 
have  a  reference  to  no  other  order  of  ministers  than  that  of 
presbyters.  Now  all  these  passages  are,  it  is  to  be  observed, 
historical,  and  must  therefore  be  the  standard  of  interpretation 
by  which  the  meaning  of  all  other  portions  of  the  New  Tes- 
tament must  be  explained.  So  that  we  are  not  left  to  doubt 
that  the  order  of  presbyters  was  the  permanent  order  estab- 
lished in  all  the  apostolic  churches. x 

But  that  prelates,  or  bishops,  as  an  order  distinct  from  that 
of  presbyters,  superior  to  them,  and  essential  to  the  constitu- 
tion of  every  church,  were  as  invariably  appointed,  is  not 
proved  from  scripture,  by  any  clear  or  sufficient  evidence. 
There  is  nothing  in  the  New  Testament,  on  which  a  belief  in 
such  an  order  can  be  grounded  with  certainty.  Archbishop 
Potter,  even  where  he  asserts  that  there  were,  '  beyond  dis- 
pute,' '  the  two  orders  of  fixed  and  standing  ministers,  name- 
ly, that  of  bishops  and  presbyters,'  is  obliged  immediately  to 
contradict  himself  by  adding,  that  it  has  been  disputed  wheth- 
er the  bishops  mentioned  in  the  New  Testament  were  not 
the  same  as  presbyters,  or  an  order  superior  to  them,  and  this 
controversy  he  says  he  will  not  take  upon  him  to  decide.2  It 
is  therefore  certain,  '  beyond  all  dispute,'  that  the  divine  insti- 
tution of  such  a  superior  order  is  not  certain,  and  that  it  can 
never  be  held  as  certain  by  others.  We  nowhere  read  of 
the  institution  of  such  an  order.  Nowhere  do  we  find  an 
account  of  the  ordination,  in  the  same  church,  of  an  order  of 
prelates  besides  the  order  of  presbyters.  Nowhere  do  we 
discover  directions  by  which  their  qualifications  may  be  de- 
termined, their  duties  ascertained,  and  their  distinctive  and 
superior  functions  declared.  Every  passage  from  which  the 
inference  that  they  must  have  existed  has  been  drawn,  will 
admit,  to  say  the  least,  of  a  contrary  interpretation,  and  must, 
we  think,  receive  it.  The  denial  of  their  appointment  in- 
volves no  contradiction  or  absurdity.      Such  an  order,  there- 

1)  See  this  fully  argued  by  Thorn-     son's  Sum  of  the  Episcopal  Controv. 
dike    in  his  Prim.  Govt,  of  the  Ch.,    pp.  24-31. 
pp.  6,  17,|  18,  20,  25.     See    also  Jame-  2)  Potter  on  Ch.  Govt.  p.  107. 


104        PRESBYTERS  SUCCESSORS  TO  APOSTLES.    [BOOK  I. 

fore,  even  if  permissible,  can  never  be  made  essential  to  the 
being  of  a  church,  nor  to  salvation,  nor  to  a  true  and  valid 
ministry,  without  the  extremest  arrogance  and  impiety. 

It  is  also  clear,  that  since  the  only  ordinary  and  permanent 
order  of  the  christian  ministry,  which  can  be  demonstrated  to 
have  existed  in  the  apostles'  times,  is  that  of  presbyters ;  since 
they  were  set  over  the  churches  by  the  apostles  in  their  own 
time,  and  since  the  apostles  labored  with  them  in  the  same 
churches  for  many  months  or  years,  as  Paul  did  in  Asia ; 
presbyters  are  the  only  persons  who  can  be  fitly  or  in  truth 
denominated  the  successors  of  the  apostles.' l 

§  3.     The  apostles,  as  ordinary  ministers,  were  not  prelates, 
but  presbyters.     Presbyters,  therefore,  are  their  successors. 

It  is  confirmatory  of  these  views,  that  while  the  apostles,  as 
such,  that  is,  in  their  extraordinary  character,  are  confessedly 
without  fixed  and  standing  successors  in  the  church,-2  there  is 
nothing  in  their  ordinary  character,  considered  as  christian 
ministers,  to  justify  the  disparting  of  the  ministry  into  these 
three  orders.  Archbishop  Potter  enumerates  the  three  orders 
of  bishops,  priests,  and  deacons,  independently  of  the  apos- 
tles,3 who  are  to  be  regarded  as,  in  their  extraordinary  charac- 
ter, the  founders  and  institutors  of  the  church.  In  their  ordi- 
nary character,  however,  as  ministers,  do  the  apostles  lead  us 
to  regard  them,  in  the  light  of  prelates,  and  the  presbyters  as 
inferior  to  them  as  a  second  order  of  the  ministry?  The 
very  contrary  is,  as  we  have  fully  seen,  the  truth.4 

Presbyters,  therefore,  and  not  prelates,  are  the  successors 
of  the  apostles  in  their  ordinary  ministerial  office,  since  the 
apostles  were,  in  fact,  and  were  called  presbyters,  and  were 
never  called  bishops,  nor  identified  in  their  ministerial  char- 
acter with  any  other  order,  than  the  one  general  order  of 
presbyters.  Plainly,  it  is  to  be  inferred,  that  if  prelates  are, 
as  they  assume  that  they  are,  an  order  essentially  different 
and  distinct  from  presbyters,  they  cannot  be  successors  of  the 
apostles.  For  that  they  do  not  succeed  them  in  their  pecu- 
liar and  extraordinary  character,  has  been  made  clear,  whilst, 
in  their  ordinary  character,  '  the  apostles  were  undoubtedly 
presbyters,'5  and  of  course  could  give  succession  only  to 
presbyters. 

1)  See  Baxter  on  Episc.  p.  78.  3)   Potter  on  Church  Govt. p.  107. 

2)  See    Lectures  on   Apostolical  4)   See  chap.  i. 
Succession.  5)  Potter  ut  supra. 


CHAP.  IV.]  PRESBYTERS  CONJOINED  WITH  APOSTLES.      105 

§  4.     Presbyters,  and  not  prelates,  are  placed  next  to  the 
apostles,  in  the  foundation  of  the  church. 

A  third  argument  may  be  founded  on  the  declaration  of 
saint  Paul  to  the  Ephesians,  where  he  informs  us  that  the 
church  is  built  upon  the  foundation  of  the  apostles  and 
prophets,  Jesus  Christ  himself  being  the  chief  corner  stone.' 
There  are  three  orders  or  successive  layers,  in  the  foundation 
of  the  catholic  church.  First,  and  as  the  corner  stone,  Jesus 
Christ,  who  was  commissioned  by  God,  the  Father,  to  be 
our  prophet,  priest,  and  king.  John,  20:  22,  23,  and  Acts,  10: 
38.  Secondly,  the  apostles,  who  were  delegated  to  their  task, 
and  divinely  inspired  and  fitted  for  their  work,  by  Christ  per- 
sonally. Thirdly,  we  have  prophets.  These  prophets  are 
here  associated  with  the  apostles  '  as  fellows  and  co-partners 
in  the  foundation  of  the  christian  church.' l  Now,  who  are 
to  be  understood  by  prophets  ?  That  they  were  ministers, 
and  therefore  of  the  order  of  presbyters,  or  presbyter-bishops, 
we  fully  believe,  though  it  is  probable,  that  they  were  endow- 
ed with  the  superadded  gift  of  prophetical  foresight.  That 
they  were  specifically  presbyters,  and  of  the  second  order  of 
the  ministry,  we  are  positively  instructed  by  archbishop  Pot- 
ter. He  says,  'when  Paul  parted  from  Barnabas  he  took 
with  him  Silas  or  Silvanus  ;  this  man  was  a  prophet,  and  is 
so  called  in  this  history,  and  by  consequence  was  of  the  order 
next  to  that  of  apostles,'  that  is  presbyters.2  The  archbishop 
then  quotes,  as  a  further  proof  of  the  three  orders,  this  very 
text.  The  same  thing  is  affirmed  by  him  of  the  prophets  in 
the  church  at  Antioch,  of  which  church  he  says,3  '  that  hitherto 
there  were  only  two  orders  of  ministers  in  this  church,  name- 
ly, those  by  whom  the  Antiochians  had  been  converted,  who 
probably  were  of  the  lowest  order,  with  Saul  and  Barnabas, 
and  perhaps  some  others  of  the  second  order,  we  find  them 
distinguished  by  the  names  of  prophets  and  teachers.1  To 
the  same  purpose  speaks  lord  Barrington,  who  thinks,  that 
as  far  as  the  prophets  were  not  extraordinary  officers,  they 
were  simply  teachers,  their  great  duty  being  exhortation.4 
Similar  is  the  view  taken  of  the  prophets  by  Dr.  Pusey,  who 
places  them  in  the  order  below  the  apostles,  that  is,  of  pres- 
byters, saying,  '  there  were  prophets  whose  office  was  to  go 
round  to  those  places  where  the  apostles  had  preached,  before 

1)  Potter  on  Ch.  Govt.  p.  102.  3)  Ibid,  p.  101.      He  affirms  the 

2)  Potter  on  Ch.  Govt.  p.  102.  same  at  p.  92. 

4)  Theol.  Wks.  vol.  i.  pp.  38,  39. 

14 


106  PRESBYTERS    ARE    THE    ONLY  [BOOK  I. 

the  ministry  was  finally  settled.' l  '  Under  them,  (that  is,  the 
apostles.)  were  placed  pastors  and  teachers,  who  were,  says 
bishop  Sherlock,  comprehended  under  the  general  name  of 
prophets.'2  The  same  thing  is  affirmed  by  bishop  Skinner,3 
and  as  we  shall  see  by  others.  By  the  term  prophets,  there- 
fore, in  this  passage,  is  to  be  understood  presbyters. 

Here,  then,  the  ministerial  succession  is  distinctly  traced 
from  the  apostles  to  presbyters,  who  were  inwrought,  by  the 
spirit  of  God,  into  the  very  contexture  of  that  foundation  on 
which  the  entire  fabric  of  the  church  rests.  The  apostles,  in 
order  to  establish  a  regular  and  standing  ministry  in  the  church, 
went  about  ordaining  presbyters,  and  these  presbyters,  under 
their  sanction  or  associated  with  them,  ordained  other  pres- 
byters also,  as  we  shall  show.  Presbyters  constitute,  there- 
fore, the  only  general  and  authorized  order  of  the  christian 
ministry,  as  part  and  parcel  of  the  necessary  frame-work  of 
the  church.  Presbyters  are  the  only  true  and  valid  successors 
of  the  apostles,  and  prelates,  if  they  will  not  take  a  place  in 
the  christian  ministry,  by  virtue  of  their  implied  presbyterate, 
but  will  insist  on  being  some  other  and  distinct  order,  must 
find  their  place  beyond  the  foundation,  and  of  course  with- 
out the  walls  of  that  temple  which  God  builded,  and  not  man. 

If  this  argument  is  inconclusive,  then  it  must  be  so  because 
there  is  no  conclusiveness  in  the  arguments  for  three  orders, 
even  as  urged  by  archbishop  Potter,  in  a  work  which  is  re- 
garded as  one  of  the  most  standard  authorities  in  favor  of 
prelatic  episcopacy. 

This  argument  may  be  strengthened  by  a  reference  to  that 
other  arrangement  of  the  ministry  of  the  church,  in  Eph.  4 : 
11,  already  adverted  to.4  'And  he,'  that  is,  Christ,  'gave 
some  to  be  apostles,  and  some  prophets,  and  some  evange- 
lists, and  some  pastors  and  teachers.'  That  the  apostles 
were,  in  their  peculiar  character,  extraordinary  officers,  and 
incapable  of  being  succeeded,  has  been  already  shown.  That 
prophets,  who  were  next  to  them,  were  presbyters,  with  pecu- 
liar gifts,  is,  we  have  seen,  granted.  Evangelists,  therclore, 
could  not,  in  order,  be  superior  to  prophets,  and  were,  there- 
fore, also  presbyters,  or  teachers,  with  powers  extended  to 
many  churches.  So  thinks  lord  Barrington  and  many 
others.5    And  that  the   pastors  and  teachers  were  the  same 

1)  The  Ch.  the  Converter  of  the  Prim.  Govt.  pp.  37,  38,  39,  252.    Sin- 
Heathen,  Serm.  ii.  p.  8,  Oxf.  1839.  ekiir's  Vind.of  the  Apost.  Succ.  Lond. 

2)  Wks.  vol.  iii.  p.  281.  1839,  p.  20,  who  calls  them  Missiona- 

3)  See  in  Mitchell's  Letters  to  p.  ries.     So  also  Eusebius  and  Stilling- 
89.  fleet,  in  Iren,  and   Dr.  Rice's   Evang. 

4)  See  chap.  i.  $  6,  p.  33.  Mag.  vol.  x.  p.  586. 

5)  Wks.  vol.  i.  p.  60.  Thorndike's 


CHAP.  IV.]  SUCCESSORS  TO  APOSTLES  THAT  ARE  NAMED.  107 

persons,  and  presbyters,  and  here  represent  the  ungifted,  ordi- 
nary, and  permanent  ministry  of  the  church,  is  plain.  '  What 
other  were  they,'  says  Hooker,  '  than  presbyters  also,  howbeit 
settled  in  some  charge,  and  thereby  differing  from  evangel- 
ists,' who  were  therefore  also  presbyters.1  Dr.  Pusey  ranks 
the  prophets,  evangelists,  pastors,  and  teachers,  all  below 
apostles,  and,  therefore,  in  the  order  of  presbyters.  '  It  was,' 
says  he, '  the  office  of  evangelists  to  extend  Christ's  kingdom 
among  the  heathen,  and  of  pastors  and  teachers  to  cultivate 
and  secure  the  ground  thus  taken  into  the  vineyard.'2  So 
that  there  is  only  one  general  permanent  order  of  ministers 
established  by  Christ  in  his  church,  the  presbyterate.3 

§  5.  The  spiritual  officers  of  the  New  Testament  churches,  are 
ranked  under  the  classifications  of  presbyters  or  bishops,  and 
deacons,  without  any  allusion  whatever  to  prelates. 

Another  preliminary  argument,  of  some  importance  to  the 
cumulative  character  of  our  proofs,  is  the  fact  that  every  where, 
throughout  the  New  Testament,  without  variation,  the  spir- 
itual officers  of  the  churches  are  ranked  under  the  classifica- 
tions of  presbyters,  or  bishops,  and  deacons.  There  were,  as 
has  been  said,  some,  of  both  these  classes,  extraordinarily  qual- 
ified, by  various  heavenly  gifts,  for  special  functions,  and,  in 
this  respect,  distinguished  by  titles  derived  from  their  peculiar 
endowments.  But,  as  it  regards  the  ordinary  and  stated  func- 
tionaries in  the  churches,  in  all  the  inspired  epistles  and  other 
records,  they  are  described  as  the  bishops  and  deacons  —  or 
the  presbyters  and  deacons.4  But  deacons,  as  we  shall  show, 
and  as  is  allowed,  are  not  an  order  of  spiritual  ministers,  in 
any  proper  sense  of  the  term,5  and  therefore,  there  was,  at  this 
time,  but  one  order  of  ministers,  in  all  the  churches  known  to 
the  New  Testament  writers.  That  there  was  but  one  minis- 
terial order  in  the  apostolic  church,  is  granted  indeed  by  Dr. 
Hammond,  bishop  Taylor,  and  others,  though  they  are  anx- 
ious to  prove  that  it  was  the  order  of  prelates.  We,  how- 
ever, have  already  clearly  established  the  indubitable  certainty 
of  the  divine  institution  of  the  order  of  presbyters,  by  the  im- 

1)  B.  v.  S  78,  vol.  ii.  p.  391,  also  Lond.  1641,  pp.  3, 7,  23,  30.  Also  in  the 
Barrington's  Wks.  vol.  i.  p.  50.  cxi.  Propositions  concerng.  the   Govt. 

2)  The  Ch.  the  Converter  of  the  of  the  Ch.  submitted  to  the  Gen.  Ass. 
Heathen,  p.  8.  of  Ch.  of  Scotld.  in  1G47.  Edinb.  1647. 

3)  See  this  view  of  the  passage  in  Prop.  ii.  p.  1. 

Ephesians,  presented   by  Mr.  Drury,  4)  E.g.  Phil.  1  : 1;  1  Tim. 3;  1  Pet. 

one  of  the  Westminister  Assembly  of    5:  12  ;    Acts,  20  :  18  ;  Tit.  1 :  5,  7. 
Divines,  in   his  Model  of  Ch.  Govt.  5)  Palmer  on  the  Church,  vol.  ii. 


108  BISHOPS    AND    PRESBYTERS  [BOOK    I. 

mediate  agency  and  express  direction  of  the  apostles,  and 
under  the  broad  seal  of  Christ's  divine  charter  and  com- 
mission. Prelates,  therefore,  as  a  distinct  order,  must  neces- 
sarily be  disbanded,  deposed  from  their  high  office,  and 
reduced,  if  found  otherwise  worthy  and  qualified  to  remain 
in  the  ministry  at  all,  which  is  not  by  any  means  a  certainty, 
to  the  simple,  scriptural  rank  of  ordinary  ministers.  For  to 
whom  were  the  powers  of  the  apostles,  as  far  as  they  were 
continued  in  the  church,  transferred,  if  not  to  these  presbyter- 
bishops  ?  Prelatists  have  no  other  scriptural  name  to  give 
them.  They  dare  not  call  them  apostles.  They  were  not 
deacons.  They  were,  and  must  be,  presbyters.1  Besides,  it 
cannot  be  denied,  that  we  have,  in  the  New  Testament,  a  care- 
ful delineation  of  the  qualifications  necessary  for  bishops  or 
presbyters,  and  deacons,  but  nowhere,  as  has  been  seen,  is 
there  any  such  view  of  the  qualifications  of  the  still  more  im- 
portant orders  of  apostles,  evangelists,  prophets,  or  prelates. 
And  why  so  ?  Manifestly  because  the  former  were  the  only 
permanent  and  standing  officers  designed  for  the  church, 
while  the  latter  were  extraordinary  and  temporary,  being 
placed  in  the  church,  not  by  the  appointment  of  men,  but  by 
the  immediate  designation  and  endowment  of  Christ  him- 
self.2 

§  6.  The  terms  bishop  and  presbyter,  both  as  they  refer  to  the 
office  and  to  the  individuals  holding  it,  are  used  throughout 
the  New  Testament  as  perfectly  synonymous,  and  the  very 
fact  that  prelatists  have  usurped  the  title  of  bishop,  is  proof 
positive  of  the  human  origin  of  the  system  of  prelacy.  Many 
objections  are  answered. 

This  leads  us  to  remark,  as  a  further  argument,  that 
throughout  the  whole  New  Testament,  the  words  presbyter 
and  bishop,  with  their  cognate  terms,  both  as  they  refer  to  the 
office  and  its  incumbent,  are  used  interchangeably,  and  as 
perfectly  synonymous,  and  the  very  fact  that  prelatists  have 
usurped  the  title  of  bishop,  is  proof  positive  of  the  human 
origin  of  the  system  of  prelacy.  That  these  terms  are  so 
employed,  has  already  been  proved.  We  shall  only  refer  to 
one  example.  Nothing  can  be  more  plain  than  the  identi- 
fication of  the  office,  order,  and  duties  of  presbyters  and 
bishops,  by  the  apostle  Paul,  in  his  last  solemn  charge  to  the 

1)    See   Dr.  Rice's  Evang.  Mag.  2)  See   Macknight  on  1  Tim.  5: 

vol.  x.  p.  575.  17.  in  vol.  iii.  p.  206. 


CHAP.    IV.]  THE    SAME    IN    NAME    AND    OFFICE.  109 

Ephesian  presbyters.  These  presbyters  are  here  expressly 
denominated  overseers,  and  are  said  to  have  been  constituted 
bishops  by  the  Holy  Ghost,  the  very  term  being  employed 
which  prelates  have  appropriated  to  themselves.  Again,  these 
presbyters  are  charged,  by  the  apostle,  to  rule,  guide,  or  feed 
the  flock  of  God,  as  a  shepherd  does  his  flock ;  taking  the 
oversight  over  them,  that  is,  exercising  a  bishop's  office  over 
them,  for  the  same  word  is  again  used.  Whatever,  therefore, 
is  implied  in  ruling,  governing,  overseeing,  and  feeding  the 
flock  of  God,  or  in  the  application  of  the  official  title  of 
episcopos,  or  bishop,  is  here  given  to  presbyters,  under  the 
most  solemn  sanctions,  and  by  the  Holy  Ghost.1 

The  word  bishop,  as  now  employed  by  prelatists,  has  re- 
ference, chiefly,  to  the  other  orders  of  ministers,  over  whom 
it  is  supposed  to  imply  oversight,  authority,  and  supremacy. 
But  in  the  New  Testament,  where  it  is  only  used  in  the  sub- 
stantive, or  personal  form,  five  times,  (Acts,  20:  28;  Phil. 
1 :  1 ;  1  Tim.  3 :  1-5 ;  1  Pet.  2 :  25 ;  Titus,  1 :  5-7  ;)  it  has 
an  invariable  reference,  not  to  the  ministry,  but  to  the  flock 
ministered  unto.2  Emaxonog,  or  bishop,  means  overseer,  one 
who  has  charge  or  oversight  committed  to  him.  It  is  expres- 
sive of  whatever  functions  may  be  delegated  to  an  individual, 
or  prescribed  to  him  by  his  employer.  The  word  presbyter, 
means  elder,  senior,  and  is  expressive,  therefore,  not  of  the 
functions  of  the  office,  but  of  the  authority  and  power  from 
which  those  functions  flow,  and  by  which  they  are  author- 
ized. And  thus  the  same  individual  may  very  often  consist- 
ently be  called  a  bishop,  as  overseeing  his  flock,  and  a  pres- 
byter, as  empowered  to  watch  over  them,  by  a  divine  com- 
mission. The  apostle  Peter,  in  his  first  epistle,  (5:1,  2,)  cer- 
tainly distinguishes  the  dignity  of  the  sacred  office  by  the 
name  presbyters,  but  the  duties  connected  with  it  by  the 
term  smoxoneiv,  which  is  the  same  as  noiftaiveiv?  '  I  can  dis- 
cover,' says  Neander, '  no  other  difference  between  the  terms 
TTgeapvTe got,  and  eniaxonoi,  in  the  apostolic  age,  than  that  the 
first  signifies  rank,  the  second  the  duties  of  the  office.'4  The 
only  difference,  therefore,  is  in  favor  of  the  greater  dignity 

1)  On  this  passage,  see  Vitringa  pal  Controversy,  pp.  78-80,  &c.  Pow- 
de  Synagog.  vet.  p.  476.  Thorndike  ell  on  Apostolic  Succession,  pp.  38, 
on  Prim.  Govt,  of  the  Ch.  p.  36.  Hook-  39.  It  is  also  used,  in  another  form,  in 
er's  admission  in  Baxter  on  Episc.  1  Pet.  5 :  1,2,  and  Acts  i.  '  his  bish- 
p.  49.  Dr.  Wilson's  Prim.  Govt,  of  the  opric.' 

Ch.  p.  278.     Peirce's  Vind.  of   Prot.  3)    Neander's  Hist,   of  the  First 

Dissent,  part  ii.  pp.  50,  57.    Jameson's  Plantg.  of  Christ'y.  vol.  i.  p.  167. 
Fundament,  of  the  Hier.  p.  157.  4)  Ibid,  169  N. 

2)  Jamieson's  Sum  of  the  Episco- 


110  BISHOPS    AND    PRESBYTERS  [BOOK    I. 

implied  in  the  term  presbyter.1  '  This  name  of  presbyter,  by 
which,'  says  this  same  writer,2  '  this  office  was  first  distin- 
guished, was  transferred  from  the  Jewish  synagogue  to  the 
christian  church.  But  when  the  church  extended  further 
among  Hellenic  Gentiles,  with  this  name  borrowed  from  the 
civil  and  religious  constitution  of  the  Jews,  another  was  join- 
ed, which  was  more  allied  to  the  designations  of  social  rela- 
tions among  the  Greeks,  and  adapted  to  point  out  the  official 
duties  connected  with  the  dignity  of  presbyters.  The  name 
eniaxono;  denoted  overseers  over  the  whole  of  the  church  and 
its  collective  concerns  ;  as  in  Attica,  those  who  were  commis- 
sioned to  organize  the  states  dependent  on  Athens,  received 
the  title  of  s/noxoxoi,  and  as,  in  general,  it  appears  to  have 
been  a  frequent  one,  for  denoting  a  guiding  oversight  in  the 
public  administration.  Since  then,  the  name  exiaxono;  was  no 
other  than  a  transference  of  an  original  Jewish  and  Hellenis- 
tic designation  of  office,  adapted  to  the  social  relations  of  the 
Gentiles ;  it  follows,  that  originally  both  names  related  entire- 
ly to  the  same  office,  and  hence  both  names  are  frequently 
interchanged  as  perfectly  synonymous.' 

Now  —  to  apply  these  remarks  —  these  and  other  phrases  are 
employed,  in  the  New  Testament,  to  denote  one  and  the  same 
officer,  and  one  and  the  same  office.  The  importance  of  this 
conclusion  will  appear  from  the  fact  established  in  our  previ- 
ous argument.  For  if,  throughout  the  New  Testament,  in 
every  catalogue  of  officers ;  in  every  form  of  salutation ;  in 
every  directory  as  to  ministerial  qualifications ;  ministers  are 
spoken  of  as  bishops  and  presbyters  indifferently,  then  does 
it  follow  that  there  is  but  one  order  of  fixed  and  permanent 
ministers  recognised  in  the  New  Testament. 

There  was  a  time  when  it  was  denounced  as  heresy  to 
maintain  this  position.  Two  of  the  charges  alleged  by  Epiph- 
anius  against  Aerius  were,  that  he  taught  that  the  apostle,  in 
the  third  chapter  of  his  first  epistle  to  Timothy,  enumerates 
the  qualifications,  not  of  prelates,  but  of  presbyters,  and  that  in 
Titus,  1:  5-7,  Paul  considered  bishops  and  presbyters  the  same 
persons,  calling  them  indifferently  by  either  name.3  Even 
since  that  time  the  opinion  now  advanced,  has  been  contro- 
verted with  all  imaginable  zeal  and  learning,  as  by  bishop 

1)  'Of  how  much  more  majesty,  been  for  many  years.'  Disc,  on  Episc. 
says  Lord  Brooke,  is  the  term  presby-     p.  75. 

ter,  which  signifies  seriior, .  .  .  whereas  2)    Hist,  of  the  First  Plantg.  of 

episcopus  signifies  nothing  but  an  over-     Christ'y,  vol.  i.  p.  167. 
seer — and  such   indeed  bishops  have  3)  See  Dr.  Wilson's  Prim.  Govt. 

of  the  Ch.  pp.  146,  147. 


CHAP.  IV.]     THE  SAME  IN  NAME  AND  OFFICE.  Ill 

Pearson  and  Dr.  Hammond.1  At  length,  however,  the  truth 
has  prevailed  against  all  opposing  error,  and  it  is  now  admit- 
ted by  the  highest  prelatic  authorities,  that  in  scripture  the 
terms  bishop  and  presbyter  designate  one  and  the  same  of- 
fice. Of  this  important  concession,  we  will  adduce  some 
proofs.  Bishop  Onderdonk  says,2  'the  name  bishop,  which 
now  designates  the  highest  grade  of  the  ministry,  is  not  ap- 
propriated to  that  office  in  scripture.  That  name  is  there 
given  to  the  middle  order  of  presbyters ;  and  all  that  we  read 
in  the  New  Testament,  concerning  bishops,  (including,  of 
course,  the  words  '  overseers'  and  '  oversight,')  is  to  be  regard- 
ed as  pertaining  to  that  middle  grade.'  'That  presbyters  were 
called  bishops,'  says  Dr.  Bowden,3  'I  readily  grant;  and  I 
also  grant  that  this  proves  that  the  officer  who  was  then  called 
a  bishop ;  and  consequently  the  office  was  the  same.'  Dr. 
Chapman  is  still  bolder,  declaring  that  '  the  episcopalian  can- 
not be  found  who  denies  the  interchangeable  employment 
of  the  terms  bishop  and  presbyter,  in  the  New  Testament.'4 
This  term  bishop,  it  would  appear,  was  in  use  in  this  in- 
terchangeable application,  even  in  old  testament  times.  '  Yea,' 
says  archbishop  Usher,5  '  in  the  xi.  of  Nehemy,  we  find  two 
named  bishops,  the  one  of  the  priests,  the  other  of  the  Levites, 
that  dwelt  in  Jerusalem.  The  former,  so  expressly  termed  by 
the  Greek  in  the  14th,  the  latter,  both  by  the  Greek  and  Latin 
interpreter  in  the  22d  verse,  and  not  without  approbation  of 
the  scripture  itself,  which  rendereth  the  Hebrew  word  of  the 
same  original  in  the  Old  and  by  the  Greek  episcopos  in  the 
New  Testament.'  That  the  terms  bishop  and  presbyter  con- 
tinued to  represent  the  same  office  and  persons,  even  to  the 
close  of  the  apostolic  government  and  of  the  inspired  records, 
is  admitted  by  Hooker,  who  would  have  us  believe,  that  for 
this  reason  the  term  angel  is  employed  in  the  Book  of  Reve- 
lation.6 Such,  also,  is  the  judgment  of  Hadrian  Saravia.7  To 
this  may  be  added  the  opinion  of  archbishop  Whitgift.  '  I 
know,'  says  he,  '  these  names  be  confounded  in  the  scriptures, 
but  I  speak  according  to  the  manner  and  custom  of  the  church, 
even  since  the  apostles  time.'8  But  we  may  go  still  higher, 
and  give  the  avowed  opinion  of  eleven  bishops,  two  archbish- 

1)  See  in  Peirce's  Vind.  of  Presb.  5)    The   original   of  Bishops,   in 
Ord.  part  ii.  p.  55.                                        Scott's  Coll.  of  Tracts,  vol.  xii.  p.  268. 

2)  Episcopacy  tested  by  Scrip-  6)  Eccl.  Pol.  B.  vii.  ch.  v.  §  ii- p. 
ture,  in  Wks.  on  Episc.  vol.  ii.  p.  420.      100,  vol.  iii.  Kible's  ed. 

3)  Wks.  on  Episcop.  vol.  i.p.  161.  7)  On  the  Priesthood,  pp.  60,  85, 

4)  Dr.  Chapman,  Serm.  to  Presb.     118. 

p.  238.  8)  Defence  of  the  Answer  to  Cart- 

wright,  Lond.  Fol.  1574,  p.  383. 


112  BISHOPS    AND    PRESBYTERS  [BOOK  I. 

ops,  and  many  other  doctors  and  civilians,  in  the  famous  '  De- 
claration made  of  the  functions  and  divine  institution  of  bish- 
ops and  priests,'  where  it  is  said,  'the  truth  is,  that  in  the  New 
Testament,  there  is  no  mention  made  of  any  degrees  or  dis- 
tinctions in  orders,  but  only  of  deacons,  or  ministers,  and  of 
priests  or  bishops.'  Bishop  Burnet  in  his  Vindication  of  the 
Church  of  Scotland1  says:  'and  I  the  more  willingly  incline 
to  believe  bishops  and  presbyters  to  be  the  several  degrees  of 
the  same  office,  since  the  names  of  bishop  and  presbyter  are 
used  for  the  same  thing  in  scripture ;  and  are  also  used  pro- 
miscuously by  the  writers  of  the  two  first  centuries.'  It  is  an 
argument  of  some  weight  in  favor  of  the  position  that  in  the 
apostles'  times  the  office  of  bishop  and  presbyter  was  one  and 
the  same,  that  the  Syriac  version,  which  was  probably  made 
early  in  the  second  century,  and  whose  authority  is  very  great, 
always  renders  the  term '  bishop '  by  a  word  which  corresponds 
to  '  elder  '  or  presbyter,  as  in  Acts,  20  :  17,  28  ;  1  Pet.  5 :  1,2; 
1  Tim.  iii.  1,  &c.  On  this  subject  Michaelis  remarks,  '  we 
know  that  the  distinction  between  bishops  and  elders  was 
introduced  into  the  christian  church  in  a  very  early  age,  yet 
this  distinction  was  unknown  to  the  Syriac  translator.'2  To 
this  opinion  bishop  Marsh  appends  the  following  note:  'this 
proves  only  that  the  Syriac  translator  understood  his  original, 
and  that  he  made  a  proper  distinction  between  the  language 
of  the  primitive,  and  that  of  the  hierarchical  church.'3  That 
in  scripture,  the  names  of  presbyter  and  bishop  were  inter- 
changeably applied  to  the  same  office  and  order,  is  allowed, 
also,  by  many  of  the  ancient  fathers.4  Thus  Irenseus  calls 
the  very  bishops  of  whom  he  gives  a  list,  as  successors  to  the 
apostles,  presbyters.5  Tertullian,  also,  insinuates  the  same 
thing.6  He  says,  probati  prccsidenl  seniorcs,'  in  quoting 
which,  Mr.  Palmer  says,  'the  bishops  were  often  called  pres- 
byters.'8 Hilary,  the  deacon,  says,  that  'the  ordination  of 
bishop  and  presbyter  is  the  same,  for  both  are  priests,'  or  pres- 
byters. He  also  affirms,  quia  prim  ion  presbyteri  episcopi  ap- 
pellabantur,  that  is,  presbyters  were  at  first  called  bishops.9  The 

1 )  See  Conf.  4,  p.  16.r).  ed.  ii.  6)  Tertull.  Apol.  cap.  xxxix. 

2)  Introd.to  the  N.  T.  vol.  ii,  part  7)  This  term  was  given  to  pres- 
i.  p.  32.  bytcrs,  see  proved  in  Jameson's  Cul- 

3)  Ibid,  vol.  ii.  p.  553.  dees,  4to.   Edinb.  pp.  62,  G4.    Powell 

4)  Bingham's  Eccl.  Ant.  B.  ii.  ch.  on  Apost.  Suce.  pp.  52,  53,  58.    King's 
i.  vol.  i.  p.  41,  and  ch.  xix.  p.  180.  Prim.  Christ'y  p.  01,  &c. 

5)  Iren.   Adv.   Ha?r.  lib.  iv.  cap.  8)  Palmer  on  the  Church,  vol.  ii. 
xliii.  and  cap.  xliv.  and  as  quoted  in  p.  120. 

Euseb.  lib.  i.  cap.  xxiii.  and  in  lib.  v.  0)  Hilary  on    Eph.  4:  2.     See  in 

cap.  xxiv.  See  King's  Prim.  Church,  Presb.  Pamph.  No.  ii.  p.  57,  and  on 
p.  66.  1  Tim.  3,  also. 


CHAP.  IV.  ]  THE    SAME    IN    NAME    AND    OFFICE.  113 

Culdees  also  used  these  terms  bishop  and  presbyter  inter- 
changeably, as  Bede  testifies.1  That  the  word  bishop  was 
anciently  employed  in  a  sense  very  different  from  that  after- 
wards attached  to  it,  is  shown  by  Mr.  Jamieson  from  numer- 
ous facts  in  the  history  of  the  British  Isles,  and  might  be  made 
to  appear,  he  says,  '  by  ample  proof  brought  from  the  general 
history  of  Christendom.'2  Clemens  Alexandrius  calls  the 
same  individuals,  and  in  the  same  paragraph,  bishops  and 
presbyters.3  Cyprian  calls  his  presbyters  pastores  oviumf  or 
pastors ;  also,  propositi,  or  presidents  set  over  the  people.5 
Origen  denominates  the  presbyters  ao/oviegTu  laov  the  gov- 
ernors of  the  people.6  Clemens  Alexandrinus  would  appear 
most  unequivocally  to  identify  bishops  and  presbyters  as  one 
and  the  same,  for  he  assures  us  the  apostles  established  in  the 
churches  only,  '  bishops  and  deacons,'  and  that  '  for  many 
ages  past  it  was  thus  prophesied  concerning  bishops  and  dea- 
cons.' '  The  martyrs  of  the  Gallacian  church  call  Irenaeus  a 
presbyter  after,  as  Blondel  shows,  he  must  have  been  nine 
years  bishop  in  the  place  of  Pothinus.8  In  his  epistle  to  Flor- 
inus,  Irenasus  calls  Polycarp,  bishop  of  Smyrna,  'that  holy 
and  apostolic  presbyter.' 9  Cyprian  several  times  applies  to 
both  bishops  and  presbyters  the  same  title  of  propositus,  or 
president,  to  whom  he  ascribes  apostolical  succession.10  Chrys- 
ostom  very  fully  and  explicitly  testifies  to  the  original  appli- 
cation to  the  same  individual  of  the  names  bishop  and  pres- 
byter. In  process  of  time,  he  says,  the  names  were  specially 
appropriated,  though  many  bishops,  even  in  his  days,  called 
their  presbyters  compresbyteri.11  CEcumenius  says,  '  many 
are  ignorant  of  the  manner,  especially  of  the  New  Testament, 
whereby  bishops  are  called  presbyters  and  presbyters  bishops.'12 
Theodoret  is  not  less  plain.  '  The  apostles,'  says  he,  <  call  a 
presbyter  a  bishop,  as  we  showed  when  we  explained  the 
epistle  to  the  Philippians,  which  may  be  also  learned  from 
this  place,  that  is,  1  Tim.  3.'13      Thus,  also,  speaks  Pelagius 

1)  See  Hist.  L.  v.  §  v.  and  Jamie-  S)  Euseb.  lib.  v.   c.  iv.  and  Stil- 
son's  Culdees  pp.  332,  237.  lingfleet  Irenaenum,  p.  311. 

2)  Jamieson's  Culdees,  p.  333,  et  9)  Iren.  Oper.  Fragmenta  Bened. 
seq.  Edn.  1710,  p.  339. 

3)  See  Apud.  Euseb.  lib.  v.  cap.  10)  Ep.  x.  xi.  and  lxii.  and  Stil- 
xxiv.  and  in  Stromat.  lib.  iii.  and  lib.  lingfleet  Irenicum,  p.  308. 

vi.  11)  Hom.i.  ad  Phil,  in  Wks.  Tom. 

4)  Cyprian  Epist.  xi.  §  i.  xi  p.  224. 

5)  Ibid,  and  Epist.  lxii.  §  ii.  12)   On   Phil.  i.  1,  in   Jameson's 

6)  Comment,    on    Matt.    Apud.     Fundament  of  the  Hier.  p.  169. 
King's  Prim.  Ch.  p.  67.  13)  On  1  Tim.  iii.  in  do.  p.  170. 

7)  Epist.   i,     ad.     Corinth,     see 
quoted  in  King's,  &c.  pp.  68,  69. 

15 


114  BISHOPS    AND    PRESBYTERS  [BOOK  I. 

on  Phil.  1:1.'  Here  by  bishops  we  understand  presbyters,  for 
there  could  not  have  been  more  bishops  in  one  city  :  but  we 
have  this  matter,  also,  in  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles.' 1  Sedulius, 
also  proves  the  identity  of  bishops  and  presbyters,  both  with 
the  apostles  and  among  the  ancients.2  Primasius  expresses 
his  opinion  in  the  very  words  of  Pelagius.3  With  these  agrees 
the  council  of  Aquisgranensis,  cap.  8,4 '  collecting  thus  out  of 
this  place  Paulus  apostolus  presbi/teros  vt  vere  sacerdotes  sub 
nomine  episcoporum  adseuerat :  Paul  the  apostle  doth  affirm 
the  elders  or  presbyters  to  be  true  priests  or  pastors  under  the 
name  of  bishops.5  To  this  conclusion,  that  in  scripture  the 
terms  bishop  and  presbyter  are  synonymous,  prelatists  have 
been  now  universally  driven  by  the  undeniable  usage  of 
scripture.  Thus  when  the  apostles  instructed  Titus  to  see 
that  presbyters  were  ordained  in  every  city,  he  lays  down  the 
qualifications  necessary  for  a  presbyter,  by  saying,  'for  a  bish- 
op must  be  blameless,'  &c.  (Titus,  1 :  5,  7.)  Presbyters  are 
required  to  possess  the  same  qualifications  for  their  office  as 
bishops.  (Titus,  1:  5,7;  1.  Tim.  3 :  1,  2,  &c. ;  Acts,  20: 
17,  18.)  Presbyters  are  to  discharge  the  same  duties  as  are 
laid  down  for  bishops.  Presbyters  are  set  apart  to  their  work 
by  the  same  express  authority,  and  consecration,  as  bishops. 
(Acts,  20  :  17, 2S ;  and  Titus,  1 :  5-7.)  Presbyters  and  bish- 
ops being  thus  identified  in  name,  qualifications,  duties,  ordi- 
nation, and  authority,  are  necessarily  one  and  the  same  in 
office.  Presbyters  are  bishops,  and  bishops  are  no  more  than 
presbyters.  There  is,  and  can  be,  but  the  one  order.  Pres- 
byters are  the  only  apostolic  bishops,  who  were  the  first  and 
rightful  successors  of  the  apostles. 

Now,  it  must  be  admitted,  that  names  are  given  for  the 
very  purpose  of  designating  the  person  or  object  named.  By 
their  application,  the  individual  or  object  is  distinguished 
from  other  individuals  and  objects.  And  when  differenl 
names  are  given  to  one  and  the  same  object,  they,  together, 
fully  designate  that  object.  In  the  Bible  we  also  find  that 
names  are  generally  significant  of  some  quality,  property,  or 
circumstance  connected  with  the  objeel  or  person  to  whom 
they  are  applied.  These  titles,  therefore,  of  bishop  and  pres- 
byter, are  not  to  be  regarded  as  arbitrary  titles.  On  the  con- 
trary, they  were  imposed  by  inspired  men,  under  direction 

1)  See  in   ibid.  p.  17P>.  and  on  1  See    numerous    quotations  to 

Tim.  3  :  and  Tit.  1 :  in  do.  p. 177,  which  the  same  effect    in    Gieseler's   Eccl. 

are  very  strong.  Hist.  vol.  i.  pp.  56,  57,   Dii  Tin   vol.  i. 

2) 'In  ibid,  p.  177.  pp.42, 1S2,  De  Moor's  Comment,  torn. 

3)  In  ibid.  p.  177.  vi.  p.  261-270.       Binii    Concil.  torn. 

4)  Willet  Syn.  Pap.  p.  269.  vii.  p.  174,  and  torn.  vi.  p.  241. 


CHAP.    IV.]  THE    SAME    IN    NAME    AND    OFFICE.  115 

of  the  supreme  wisdom  of  God,  in  full  view  of  what  was 
most  appropriate,  and  looking  to  the  present  and  future 
interests  of  the  church.  And  since  God  has  seen  right  to 
employ  the  terms  bishop  and  presbyter  as  synonymous,  and 
as  both  expressive  of  the  same  ministerial  order,  the  argu- 
ment for  the  identity,  both  in  name  and  office,  of  the 
scripture  bishops  and  presbyters,  appears  demonstrative. 

But  further,  since  these  titles  of  bishop  and  presbyter  are 
thus  manifestly  applied  by  the  Holy  Spirit  to  the  same  office 
and  order;  since  they  are  still  expressive  of  the  office  of 
the  ministry  in  its  different  aspects ;  and  since  God,  who, 
for  wise  reasons  first  gave  them,  has  never  altered  their  appli- 
cation ;  they  ought,  beyond  all  controversy,  to  retain  their 
original  meaning.  They  do  not,  of  themselves,  distinguish 
different  orders.  They  are  specially  set  apart  as  different 
names  for  one  and  the  same  order.  They  were  certainly 
thus  employed,  until  the  close  of  the  apostolic  age,  and  much 
later.  Nor  has  any  human  tribunal  authority  to  change  their 
meaning,  or  to  make  them  distinctive  of  two  essentially 
separate  orders.  And  yet  this  change  has  been  effected  by 
prelatists,  and  they  now  formally  teach  us,  that '  it  is  evident 
to  all  men,  diligently  reading  the  holy  scriptures,  that  there 
have  been,  from  the  apostles'  time,  three  orders  of  ministers 
in  Christ's  church,  bishops,  priests,  and  deacons!  Here 
then  is  a  manifest  contradiction  between  the  practice  and 
teaching  of  the  prelacy,  and  that  of  the  apostles  and  the  New 
Testament  writers  generally. 

That  this  change  in  the  use  of  these  titles  has  taken  place, 
is  universally  allowed,  so  that  Dr.  Bowden  will  not  admit 
that,  from  the  second  century  until  the  present  time,  in  any 
single  instance,  presbyters  are  ever  called  bishops.1  It  is 
also  granted,  that  this  change  took  place  after  the  death  of 
the  apostles.  The  earliest  authority  for  this  alteration  of 
titles,  is  Theodoret,  a  writer  of  the  fifth  century.  '  Theodoret,' 
says  Mr.  Daubeny,  observes  that,  '  in  process  of  time,  for  dis- 
tinction's sake,  the  name  of  apostle  came  only  to  be  given 
to  the  apostles,  especially  so  called.'2  The  same  writer  adds, 
in  reference  to  the  title  of  bishop,  that  before  this  '  distinct 
appropriation,'  which  was  made  in  process  of  time,  '  this  title 
had  before  been  common  to  ecclesiastics  of  different  degrees.'3 
Since  he  adduces  Clemens  Alexandrinus,  who  lived  A.  D. 
194,  and  Tertullian  also,4  as  still  using  the  term  apostle,  in 

1)  Wks.onEpisc.vol.i.p,161.  3)  Ibid,  p.  64. 

2)  Guide  to  the  Ch.  vol.  ii.  p.  63.  4)  Ibid,  p.  63. 
Lond.  1804. 


116  BISHOPS    AND    TRESBYTERS  [BOOK    I. 

reference  to  ministers  subsequent  to  the  original  apostles, 
we  are,  of  course,  left  to  conclude,  that  in  their  age,  the  term 
bishop  was  not  appropriated  to  an  order  of  prelates,  but  was 
common  also  to  presbyters.  And  as  he  shows  that  Cyprian 
first  calls  the  apostles  bishops,  and  the  bishops  of  his  time 
successors  of  the  apostles,  we  must  trace  the  commencement 
of  the  prelatic  usage  of  these  terms  to  the  Cyprianic  age.1 
From  that  time  to  the  present,  the  term  bishop  has  been  made 
to  signify  a  prelate,  and  the  term  presbyter  an  officer  who  can 
have  no  existence  but  through  the  manipulations  of  a  prelate  ; 
and  no  powers,  rights,  or  authority,  but  what  are  conveyed 
to  him  by  prelatic  delegation ;  and  yet,  it  is  confessed,  that, 
in  scripture,  both  these  terms  meant  one  and  the  same  order. 
Now,  when  a  man  changes  his  name,  and  assumes  that  of 
some  other  person,  we  must  believe  he  has  done  so  for  some 
purpose  of  self-interest  and  advantage.  And  when  prelates 
surreptitiously  possessed  themselves  of  the  title  bishop,  and 
denied  it,  on  pain  of  heresy  and  revolt,  to  presbyters,  they 
must  have  had  a  reason.  We  insist  upon  it,  that  some  satis- 
factory explanation  shall  be  given  of  the  fact,  that  the  title  of 
bishop,  confessedly  belonging  to  presbyters,  should  have 
been  taken  from  them,  and  given  to  prelates.  As  to  the  plea 
of  modesty,  set  up  by  Theodoret,  it  is  perfectly  ridiculous,  in 
reference  to  those  to  whom  were  applied  the  lofty  and  profane 
titles  of  Pontifex  Maximus,  Summus  Ponlifex,  Summua 
Sacerdos,  Princeps  Sacerdotum,  and  the  like. 2  And  besides, 
this  plea  of  modesty,  however  it  might  avail  Ignatius,  who 
denied  that  bishops  were  successors  of  the  apostles,3  or  even 
Ambrose,  who  said,  '  I  do  not  claim  the  honor  of  apostles, 
for  who  had  this  but  those  whom  the  Son  of  God  himself 
chose,'4  will  render  but  little  service  to  those  who  now 
asseverate  their  claims  to  be  true  and  lineal  successors  of  the 
apostles,  with  all  possible  effrontery  and  shamelessness. 
What,  then,  was  the  reason,  for  thus  tampering  with  the 
divine  authority  ;  for  thus  casting  imputation  upon  the  divine 
wisdom;  and  altering  a  divine  arrangement?  One  of  their 
own  party  has  said,  that  '  a  self-originated  upstart  may  take 
a  man's  name,  and  claim  his  inheritance;  but  when  his  title 
comes  to  be  examined,  the  true  right  will  appear,  and  justice 
will  take  place.'5     And  so  will  it  be  in  the  present  case.     For 

1)  Guide  to  the  Ch.  vol.  ii.  p.  63.  1)  Wks.  Tom.  iv.  1.  in  Dr.  Wil- 
Lond.  1804.  son's  Prim.  Govt.  p.  141. 

2)  See  Faber's  Diff.  of  Roman-  5)  Joms's    Wks.    vol.   iv.  p.   495. 
ism,  p.  81.  Essay  on  the  Ch. 

3)  See  Dr.  Willet's  Synopsis  Pa- 
pismi,  p.  273. 


CHAP.    IV.]  THE    SAME    IN    NAME    AND    OFFICE.  117 

the  change  in  these  names  manifestly  proves,  that  a  change 
had  taken  place  in  the  relations  of  the  two  offices  or  orders 
to  which  they  had  been  applied.1  Otherwise,  the  change 
would  have  been  unnecessary,  and  sound  policy  would  have 
forbidden  it,  since  '  a  veil  of  mystery  is  hereby  artificially 
thrown  upon  the  subject,  which  would  never  have  existed,  if 
the  original  name  of  apostle  had  been  suffered  to  remain 
unaltered.'3  Nor  can  all  the  skill  of  man  wipe  off  from 
prelatists,  the  unescapeable  imputation,  that  by  this  exclusive 
appropriation  to  the  order  of  prelates,  of  the  term  bishop, 
which  belongs  exclusively  to  presbyters,  they  intended  to 
palm  the  order  of  prelates  upon  the  world,  under  the  cover 
of  a  divinely  instituted  title,  and  thus  to  procure  for  it  that 
divine  origin,  authority,  and  preeminence,  to  which  it  has  no 
scriptural  claim.  Nor  have  all  the  learned  advocates  of 
prelacy,  with  all  their  sophistry,  been  able  to  defend  her,  in 
this  matter,  from  manifest  sacrilege,  and  a  violation  of  '  the 
sacredness  of  divine  truth.'3  And  if  prelatists  will  resent 
this  charge  as  calumnious,  let  them  inform  us  when,  where, 
by  whom,  and  upon  what  authority,  this  change  was  made, 
and  why  that  title,  which  was  signed,  sealed,  and  delivered 
over  to  presbyters,  as  their  perpetual  right,  was  employed  by 
prelates,  to  cover  the  nakedness  of  their  pretensions  to  a 
divine  charter? 

How  different  is  the  meaning  conveyed  by  the  same  word, 
at  different  times,  may  be  at  once  seen  by  a  reference  to  the 
term  wiper ator.  While  Rome  was  free  and  enjoyed  her 
republican  form  of  government  uncorrupted,  this  title  desig- 
nated only  an  officer  in  the  army,  of  the  same  rank  and  pow- 
er with  his  brother  officers.  But  when  Julius  Caesar  had 
enslaved  his  country,  and  overturned  the  government,  he 
appropriated  this  title  to  himself  and  his  sucessors;  and 
hence  the  term  imperator,  which  formerly  signified  an  officer 
of  equal  rank  and  powers  with  others,  came  to  mark  out  one 
who  held  supreme  authority  over  all  others,  both  in  the  army 
and  the  state. 

Now  just  as  it  was  in  ancient  Rome  with  the  term  imper- 
ator, was  it  in  the  ancient  church  with  the  term  bishop. 
Bishop  in  the  scripture,  and  in  the  apostolic  churches,  signi- 
fied only  a  minister  of  the  gospel,  of  equal  rank  and  authority 
with  his  fellow  ministers,  however  otherwise  denominated. 
But  when  prelates  had  arrived  at  their  supremacy  in  the  church, 

1)  See  this  argument  employed  2)  Dr.    Chapman's    Sermons    to 

by  Burnet,  on  the  xxxix.  art.  p.  436.         Presb.  of  all  Sects,  p.  239. 

3)  See  Bishop  Bull's  Vind.p.258. 


118  BISHOPS    AND    PRESBYTERS  [BOOK   I. 

or  rather  were  securing  to  themselves  the  attaiment  of  power, 
they  appropiated  the  exclusive  application  of  this  title,  and 
of  course  all  the  powers  it  originally  implied;  and  thus  cov- 
ered their  usurpation  of  the  rights  of  the  clergy,  under  the 
shield  of  a  scriptural  title,  and  a  divine  right. 

It  is  said,  indeed,  that  this  reasoning  from  the  names, 
bishop  and  presbyter,  is  a  mere  verbal  and  llimsy  sophistry, 
and  that  the  question  '  cannot  be  one  of  words.'  But  this 
surely  is  an  after  thought — a  refuge  from  evident  defeat — and 
a  most  dangerous,  as  well  as  delusive  artifice.  For  who  are 
such  '  word-mongers '  as  these  same  prelatists  ?  '  I  am  sorry,' 
says  one  of  themselves,  'that  this  seems  to  be  the  plan 
commonly  adopted  by  the  tractators, J  (that  is  the  high 
churchmen.)  Under  a  phrase  which  may  be  interpreted  in 
various  ways,  they  lay  down  a  certain  doctrine,  and  then 
quote  as  supporters  of  their  views,  all  those  who  have  de- 
fended any  doctrine  that  has  borne  the  same  name,'  and  thus 
do  they  delude  their  people  by  playing  upon  this  very  term, 
bishop,  and  upon  its  use  in  ancient  writers  in  a  sense  entirely 
different  from  theirs.  Let  us,  however,  test  the  validity  of 
this  objection.  We  mutually  believe  in  the  fundamental 
doctrine  of  our  Lord's  divinity.  Now  is  the  argument  for 
this  doctrine,  founded  on  the  unquestionable  fact,  that  the 
same  divine  names,  titles,  and  attributes,  are  indiscrim- 
inately applied  to  each  of  the  persons  in  this  glorious  god- 
head, a  mere  verbal  sophistry  ?  to  be  at  once  overthrown  by 
the  retorted  cavil,  that  this  doctrine  cannot  be  made  a  ques- 
tion of  words  ?  Surely  not.  And  neither  is  the  argument 
founded  upon  the  application  of  the  very  term  now  given  to 
prelates,  to  presbyters,  for  the  identity  of  these  officers,  weak 
or  invalid. 

We  are,  however,  reminded,  that  in  the  New  Testament, 
all  the  names  of  the  officers  of  the  church  are  used  inter- 
changeably. Thus  our  Lord  himself  is  designated  as  an 
apostle,  a  bishop,  and  a  deacon ;  and  the  apostles,  also,  are 
described  as  ministers,  that  is,  deacons,  and  their  office  as  a 
ministry.2  Now,  we  may  admit  all  this,  and  yet  deny  that, 
in  any  given  case,  the  deacons  are  called  cither  bishops  or 
apostles.  In  one  sense  of  the  term  deacon,  (a  minister,)  all 
are  deacons  thai  are  ministers,  although,  in  its  official  sense, 
neither  ( 'lirist,  nor  the  apostles,  ma-  presbyters,  are  deacons,  and 
therefore  deacons  are  never  called  by  their  titles.    The  words, 

1)   Goode's  Divine  Rule  of  Faith,  2)  See   this  argument   urged  by 

vol.  ii.  p.  100.  Perceval  on  the  Ap.  Succ.  and  at  great 

length  by  bishop  Onderdonk. 


CHAP.  IV.]  THE    SAME    IN    NAME    AND    OFFICE.  119 

therefore,  are  not  used  indiscriminately,  or  synonymously. 
On  the  other  hand,  bishops  are  not  only  called  presbyters, 
but  presbyters  are  just  as  freely  called  bishops,  and  the  same 
individuals,  in  the  same  breath,  are  called  both  bishops  and 
presbyters.  These  terms  are  therefore  used  indiscriminately, 
and  are  synonymous,  and,  being  both  applied  to  the  same 
thing,  must  refer  to  one  and  the  same  order.  And  we  can- 
not but  regard  this  elaborate  exposure,  of  what  is  termed  '  a 
flimsy  sophistry  of  names,'  as,  after  all,  a  very  poor  reply  to 
the  fact,  that  in  the  inspired  word  of  God  the  name  bishop 
is  applied  to  presbyters  as  their  characteristic  title,  and  as 
little  better  than  solemn  trifling. 1  Neither  is  it  true,  that  we 
base  our  argument  upon  the  mere  fact,  that  both  these  names 
are  common,  but  upon  the  fact,  that  the  qualifications  and 
characters,  the  work  and  office,  to  which  these  different  titles 
are  given,  are  one  and  the  same,  and  are  identical.  But  prelat- 
ists,  on  the  contrary,  argue,  that  diocesan  prelates  are  the 
same  as  the  primitive  bishops,  and  when  asked  for  a  reason, 
they  can  give  no  other,  than  that  both  are  called  bishops, 
although  the  work,  duty,  and  office  of  each  is  as  different  as 
presbytery  and  prelacy,  and  are  inconsistent  and  incompatible. 
So  that,  after  all,  it  is  to  prelatists  we  are  indebted  for  this 
flimsy  argument,  ad  nominem,  while  we  alone  argue  ad  rem.2 

Bishops  and  presbyters,  then,  are  in  scripture  one  and  the 
same  order,  and  since,  as  archbishop  Laud  teaches,  our  Lord 
made  the  twelve  disciples  bishops,  '  and  gave  them  the  name 
of  bishops  as  well  as  of  apostles,' 3  and  since  this  name  is 
confessedly  the  scripture  title  of  presbyters,  presbyters  must 
be  the  true  and  valid  successors  of  the  apostles.  The  custom 
of  the  church,  as  Whitgift  confesses,  and  not  the  authority 
of  scripture,  must  be  sought  for  the  true  foundation  of  the 
prelatic  office.  Scripture  knows  only  presbyter-bishops,  but 
no  bishops  of  presbyters.  Presbyters  are  bishops  according 
to  the  scriptural  canons  ;  prelates  are  bishops  by  virtue  of  the 
ecclesiastical  canons.  Prelates  are  bishops  in  phrasi  pontifi- 
ca,  presbyters  in  phrasi  apostolica,  and  they  alone  can  be 
traced  up  to  apostolic  origin  and  institution. 

But  to  all  this  it  is  confidently  objected,  that  there  is,  in  the 
New  Testament,  a  very  careful  distinction  between  '  apostles 
and  elders,'  (Acts,  15 :  2,  4,  6,  and  ch.  16  :  4,)4  by  which  it  is 
shown,  that  the  apostles  are  '  superior  in  ministerial  power 

l)SeeBoyse's  Amcl.  Episc.p.207.  3)  On  the  Lit.  and  Episc.  p.  195. 

2)  See  Powell  on  Ap.  Succ.  2d  4)  Bishop  Onderdonk  Ep.  Test, 

ed.  p.  301.  by  Scr.  pp.  14,  15. 


120  BISHOPS    AND    PRESBYTERS  [BOOK  I. 

and  rights.'  Now  that  the  apostles,  as  such,  in  their  charac- 
acter  of  inspired  and  extraordinary  officers  in  the  church  of 
God,  were  distinct,  and  distinguished  from  the  presbyters,  or 
the  ordinary  ministers  of  the  churches,  no  one  was  ever  fool- 
ish enough  to  question.  That  they  were,  in  this  respect, 
very  different,  is  freely  allowed  ;  but  that,  in  this  respect,  the 
apostles  had  any  successors,  is  what  we  confidently  deny. 
These  expressions,  then,  most  assuredly  do  not  teach  that 
any  other  difference  existed  between  the  apostles  and  pres- 
byters, than  what  must  exist  between  apostles  and  prelates, 
and  to  assume,  that  because  the  names  of  the  apostles  and 
presbyters  are  coupled  together  by  the  conjunction  and; 
therefore  the  one,  as  ministers,  represented  a  permanent  order 
in  the  church  higher  than  the  other,  is  surely  too  flagrant  a 
begging  of  the  entire  question,  to  be  for  one  moment  tol- 
erated. Until  it  can  be  shown  that  the  characteristic  distinc- 
tion of  the  apostles  was  their  superiority  in  ministerial  rights, 
as  an  order  in  the  church,  this  attempted  argument  is  worse 
than  idle.1  It  may,  however,  be  still  further  objected,  that, 
granting  presbyters  and  bishops  to  be  of  the  same  order,  they 
may  be  different  degrees  of  the  same  order.  But  this  eva- 
sion cannot  avail.  It  is,  in  the  first  place,  suicidal.  For 
among  bishops  it  is  denied  that  there  is  any  difference  in 
degree,  although  archbishops  preside  in  all  convocations,  and 
have  other  prerogatives.  Now,  either  such  presidency  con- 
stitutes a  different  degree,  or  else  it  can  effect  no  such  change 
among  presbyters.  The  same  is  true  of  the  order  of  deacons, 
which  admits  of  no  higher  and  lower  degrees,  however  varied 
in  its  stations,  and  must,  therefore,  be  true  of  the  order  of 
presbyters.  The  apostles,  again,  were  all  of  one  order,  and 
yet  do  many  prelatists,  as  well  as  Romanists,  insist,  that  Peter 
had  a  kind  of  presidency  among  them.  But  do  they  there- 
tore  allow,  that  he  was,  as  papists  affirm,  of  a  different  degrei  ? 
By  no  means.  Finally,  as  all  difference  in  degree  must 
come  from  difference  of  power  given  in  ordination  ;  and 
since,  as  Hilary  affirms,  and  the  body  of  the  aucienl  church 
teaches,  for  a  long  period  bishops  and  presbyters  had  but  one 
imposition  of  hands,  their  powers  must  have  been  equal,  and 
their  degree,  as  well  as  order,  the  same.2 

Presbyters,  then,  are  the  scripture  bishops,  and  therefore 
the  true  bishops,  and  the  true  successors  of  the  apostles. 
This  title  of  bishop,  prelatists  have  unlawfully  taken   from 

1 )   See   Barnes'   Episc.   Exd.    p.  2)  See  Jameson's    Cyp.   Isot.  p. 

lOG.&c.  221,  &c. 


CHAP.  IV.]  ARE  THE  SAME.  121 

presbyters.  And,  as  a  stolen  title  vests  not  by  use,  so  is  there 
no  prescription  that  can  make  this  good  to  prelatists.1  Every 
minister,  therefore,  of  all  denominations,  may  now,  as  they 
are  actually  doing,  resume  the  title  of  bishop  as  their  inalien- 
able prerogative. 

1)  See  N.  Y.  Rev.  Jan.  1842. 


16 


C  HAPTER   V. 


PRESBYTERS  ARE  CLOTHED  BY  APOSTOLIC  AUTHORITY 
WITH  ALL  THE  FUNCTIONS  OF  THE  MINISTRY. 


§  1.     Presbyters  are  divinely  authorized  to  preach  the  gospel. 

We  are  now  brought  to  another  branch  of  our  subject. 
Having  shown  that  the  bishops  of  scripture  are  in  name  and 
office  presbyters,  we  are  led  to  inquire  whether  these  presby- 
ter-bishops are  represented,  in  scripture,  as  invested  with 
all  the  powers  which  can  be  reasonably  claimed  for  prelates, 
since,  if  they  are,  they  must  necessarily  be  regarded  as  the 
true  and  only  successors  of  the  apostles.  Now  we  have 
already  seen  in  what  respects  prelates  are  said  to  be  succes- 
sors of  the  apostles.1  '  In  the  extraordinary  privileges  of 
the  apostles,'  says  bishop  Jeremy  Taylor.2  '  they  had  no  suc- 
cessors ;  therefore,  of  necessity,  a  successor  must  be  constituted 
in  the  ordinary  office  of  apostolate.  Now  what  is  this  ordi- 
nary office  ?  Most  certainly  since  the  extraordinary  (as  is 
evident)  was  only  a  help  for  the  founding-  and  beginning; 
the  other  are  such  as  are  necessary  for  the  perpetuating'  of  a 
church.  Now  in  clear  evidence  of  sense,  these  offices  and 
powers  are  preaching,  baptizing,  consecrating,  ordaining,  and 

governing These  the  apostles    had  without   all 

question,  and  whatsoever  they  had,  they  had  from  Christ, 
and  these  were  eternally  necessary,  these  then  were  the 
offices  of  the  apostolate,  which  Christ  promised  to  assist 
for  ever,  and  this  is  that  which  we  now  call  the  order  and 
office  of  episcopacy? 

Those  powers,  which  are  usually  denominated  the  keys, 
by  which  prelates  are  alleged  to  be  distinguished,  according 
to  archbishop  Potter,3    are  best  enumerated  under  the  heads ; 

1)  Seep.  57,  85.  3)  On  Ch.  Govt.  ch.  5. 

2)  Episcopacy  asserted  in  Wks. 
vol.   vii. 


CHAP.  V.  1  PRESBYTERS    APPOINTED    TO    PREACH.  123 

1.  of  preaching;  2.  of  publicly  praying;  3.  of  baptizing;  4. 
of  consecrating  the  Lord's  Supper ;  5.  of  confirmation,  and  of 
ordaining  ministers;  6,  of  spiritual  jurisdiction,  particularly 
excommunication,  under  which  we  will  include  what  he 
terms  the  power  of  making  canons.1 

If,  then,  we  can  show  that  the  scriptures  assign  to  presbyters 
these  functions,  so  far  as  it  recognises  them  at  all,  then  may 
we  confidently  conclude,  that  presbyters,  being  thus  by  divine 
right  clothed  with  all  the  powers  by  which  successors  of  the 
apostles  can  be  distinguished,  are  not  merely  the  only  true 
bishops,  but  also  the  only  true  and  valid  ministerial  successors 
of  the  apostles. 

We  shall  first,  therefore,  prove,  that  according  to  the  word 
of  God,  presbyters  are  authorized  to  preach  the  gospel.  This 
is  justly  affirmed  by  archbishop  Potter,  to  be  described  in 
ihe  word  of  God  as  one  of  the  principal  parts  of  the  apos- 
tolic office.  '  Nothing,'  he  adds,  '  can  be  more  certain  than  that 
preaching  was  an  essential  part  of  the  apostolic  office.'2 

Now  we  are  instructed  by  prelatists,  that  the  seventy  were 
a  lower  order  than  the  apostles,  being  either  presbyters,  or 
deacons.  But  it  is  certain  that  the  seventy  were  comissioned 
by  our  Saviour  to  preach ;  for  he  solemnly  assures  them,  that 
1  he  that  heareth  you  heareth  me,  and  he  that  despiseth  you 
despiseth  me,  and  he  that  despiseth  me  despiseth  him  that 
sent  me.'     Luke,  10 :  16. 

Preaching,  therefore,  is,  by  the  express  teaching  of  Christ, 
according  to  the  interpretation  of  our  opponents  themselves, 
the  function  of  presbyters,  or  of  that  order  which  was,  as  they 
affirm,  lower  than  the  apostles.  Again,  there  is,  as  we  have 
shown,  but  one  commission  in  virtue  of  which  the  gospel  can 
be  preached  at  all,  or  ministers  employed  for  this  purpose. 
And  since  presbyters  are  allowed  to  be  an  order  of  ministers, 
they  must  be  so  by  virtue  of  that  commission ;  but  by  the 
same  power  they  are  authoritatively  enjoined  to  preach  the 
gospel,  which  is  the  burden  of  that  commission.  Again,  that 
presbyters  were  originally  commissioned  to  preach,  we  argue 
from  the  fact,  that  in  all  ages  of  the  church,  presbyters  have 
been  preachers  of  the  gospel.  This  power,  therefore,  must 
have  been  considered  theirs  by  original  divine  right.  This 
argument,  if  well  weighed,  is  conclusive  against  the  scriptural 
origin  of  prelates.  For  if,  as  archbishop  Potter  affirms,  the 
power  of  preaching  resides  in  prelates,  and  belongs  to  pres- 
byters only  when  delegated  to  them  by  prelates,  then  it  is 

l)  See  Potter  on  Ch.  Govt.  2)  On  Ch.  Govt.  p.  204. 


124  PRESBYTERS    WERE  [BOOK  I 

plain  that  there  is  no  such  order  below  prelates,  and  that 
prelates  are  but  presbyters  with  assumed  prerogatives.  For 
preaching,  which  is  the  key  of  knowledge,  and  the  prin- 
cipal seat  of  apostolic  authority,  being  intrusted,  by  Christ's 
special  authority,  only  to  Christ's  appointed  officers,  cannot, 
in  the  very  nature  of  things,  be  delegated  or  transferred  to 
any  other  order  of  men.  And  if  this  conclusion  is  not 
allowed,  and  it  is  affirmed  that  prelates  may,  and  do,  delegate 
to  presbyters  in  their  ordination  this  principal  and  essential 
function  of  their  order,  then  surely  it  must  follow,  that  in  the 
same  way  they  delegate  to  them  the  right  and  power  of  ordi- 
nation, which  cannot  be  more  important  than  the  '■principal 
parf  of  their  office.  But  no  order  put  in  trust  by  Christ, 
with  special  powers,  to  the  exclusion  of  other  orders,  can 
with  his  authority  or  sanction  delegate  that  trust  to  one  of 
those  orders  who  had  been  thus  excluded.1 

Should  these  proofs  be  considered  as  inconclusive,  there  are 
others  which  must  be  satisfactory.  One  qualification  of  a 
presbyter,  as  laid  down  by  the  apostle  Paul,  and  as  descrip- 
tive of  the  office  to  which  he  is  ordained,  is  that  he  should  be 
orthodox,  (Titus,  1  :9-ll,)  'holding  fast  the  faithful  word 
as  he  hath  been  taught,  that  he  may  be  able,  by  sound  doc- 
trine, both  to  exhort  and  convince  the  gainsayers.  For  there 
are  many  unruly  and  vain  talkers  and  deceivers,  especially 
they  of  the  circumcision;  whose  mouths  must  be  stopped, 
who  subvert  whole  houses,  teaching  things  which  they  ought 
not,  for  filthy  lucre's  sake.'  Here,  surely,  we  have  authority 
for  presbyters  to  preach,  and  to  preach  with  authority,  yea,  to 
stop  the  mouths  of  unruly  and  vain  talkers  and  deceivers.  In 
like  manner,  in  another  description  of  the  qualifications  of  a 
presbyter,  it  is  declared  that  he  must  'be  apt  to  teach,'  (1  Tim. 
3:2.)  Paul  solemnly  enjoined  the  Ephesian  presbyters,  'to 
take  heed  to  all  the  flock  over  which  the  Holy  Ghost  had 
made  them  overseers,  to  feed  the  church  of  God,  which  he 
had  purchased  with  his  own  blood.'  Acts,  20 :  28. 2  Besides, 
no  church  could  exist  without  the  administration  of  the  word, 
in  the  preaching  of  the  gospel,  and  therefore  were  presbyters 
ordained  in  every  city.  And  since,  during  the  apostolic  age, 
the  only  officers  appointed  in  some  of  the  churches  were,  as 
archbishop  Potter  allows,    presbyters    and   deacons,3    these 

1)  See  Corbet  on   the  Ch.  pp.  41,  2)  See     also    Acts,    20:17,   28; 

42.  The  Ch.  Independent  of  Civil  Eph.  4:11;  Phil.  1:1;  1  Tim.  3:1; 
Govt  p.  57.  Palmer  on  the  Ch.  vol.  ii.  Acts,  20  :  7  ;  Matt.  24  :  45,  46  ;  1  Thes. 
p.  377.  5:12. 

3)  On  Ch.  Govt.  p.  110. 


CHAP.  V  ]  COMMISSIONED    TO    PREACH.  125 

presbyters  must,  of  necessity,  have  preached.  Again,  whoever 
is  the  pastor  of  any  flock,  must  feed  it  with  the  bread  of  life, 
giving  to  every  man  his  portion  in  due  season  ;  instructing, 
reproving,  and  exhorting,  with  all  long-suffering  and  diligence. 
Now  prelates  are  not  thus  pastors  to  any  given  flock,  but  are 
overseers  of  those  who  are.  Many  who  are  not  able  to 
preach,  as  the  Rhemists  inform  us,  are  qualified  to  be  bishops, 
so  that  preaching  cannot  be  a  necessary  part  of  the  prelate's 
duty.1  Presbyters,  therefore,  being  pastors,  are  by  their  very 
office  required  to  preach.  It  has  also  been  seen,  that  the 
presbyterate  has  ever  been  regarded,  even  by  prelatists  them- 
selves, as  the  generic  order,  of  which  the  episcopate  is  a  mere 
extension.  Preaching,  therefore,  was  also  believed  to  be  one 
of  the  necessary  functions  of  the  priesthood,  as  indeed  it  must 
have  been,  otherwise  it  could  belong  to  no  order  or  office  in 
the  church  at  all. 

To  this  conclusion  prelatists  are  obliged  to  accede,  and  to 
give  to  it  their  suicidal  testimony.  '  Presbyters,'  says  Dr. 
Bowden,2  '  have  a  divine  commission  for  preaching  the  word 
and  administering  the  sacraments.'  '  Hence  we  infer,'  says 
Hadrian  Saravia,  '  that  every  presbyter  and  bishop  in  the 
church  of  Christ  is  also  a  pastor ;  for  it  is  the  business  of  a 
presbyter  to  feed  the  Lord's  flock  with  wholesome  doctrine.'3 
1  We  find,'  says  bishop  Heber,  '  these  apostles  in  the  exercise 

1)  Note  on  1  Tim.  5:17.  'Now  Christ's  words  used  to  the  sick  man, 
our  lordly  prelates  have  been  so  far  to  this  good  minister:  behold,  thou 
from  executing  this  principal  part  of  art  made  whole  ;  go  away,  sin  no 
their  office  and  work,  that  some  of  more,  (that  is,  preach  no  more,)  lest  a 
them,  (as  Canterbury,  Yorke,  London,  worse  thing  come  unto  thee.  He 
and  Oxford,)  did  not  so  much  as  preach  convented  another  minister,  only  for 
one  sermon  in  sundry  years;  others  expounding  the  catechism  on  the 
of  them  have  preached  very  rarely;  Lord's  day  afternoon,  saying,  it  was 
yea,  most  of  them  have  by  themselves  as  bad  as  preaching.  Whence  Queen 
and  their  instruments  written  and  Elizabeth  used  to  say,  when  she 
preached  against  frequent  preaching ;  made  preaching  ministers  bishops, 
suppressed  all  week-day  lectures,  and  that  she  had  made  a  bishop,  but  marred 
sermons  on  Lord's  day  afternoons,  a  preacher;  it  being  true  that  the 
throughout  their  dioceses;  and  Dr.  bishop  of  Dunkeld  once  answered 
Pierce,  bishop  of  Bath  and  Wells,  by  Dean  Thomas  Farret,  when  he  wish- 
name,  in  a  letter  In  Canterbury,  ed  him  to  preach,  'I  tell  thee  we 
thanked  God  that  he  had  not  left  one  bishops  were  not  ordained  to  preach,' 
lecture  nor  afternoon  sermon  in  his  it  being  too  mean  an  office  for  them, 
diocese;  and  suspended  the  minister  unless  it  be  sometimes  at  the  court,  or 
of  Bridgwater  only  for  preaching  a  at  some  such  solemn  meeting,  to  gain 
lecture  in  his  own  parish  church,  either  more  honor  or  preferment 
which  had  continued  fifty  years  ;  and  thereby,  or  for  some  such  private 
when  this  bishop,  after  much  solicita-  ends  ;  not  out  of  any  great  zeal  of 
tion,  upon  this  minister's  promise  converting  souls  to  God.'  Prynne's 
never  to  preach  the  lecture  more,  Lordly  Prel.  Pref. 
absolved  him  from  his  suspension,  he  2)  Wks.  on  Episc.  vol.  i.p.  159. 
then     most    blasphemously    applied  3)  On  the  Priesthood,  pp.  113, 122 


126  PRESBYTERS    WERE  [BOOK  I. 

of  the  authority  thus  received,  appointing  elders  in  every  city, 
as  dispensers  of  the  word  and  sacraments  of  religion.' * 

To  this  agree  the  decrees  of  ancient  writers  and  councils. 
'  Unto  priests  as  well  as  unto  bishops,  is  committed  the  dis- 
pensation of  God's  mysteries,  for  they  are  set  over  the  church 
of  God,  and  are  partakers  with  bishops  ...  in  the  teaching 
of  the  people  and  the  office  of  preaching.'2  '  It  is  a  very  bad 
custom,'  says  the  council  of  Constantinople,  '  in  certain 
churches,  for  priests  to  hold  their  peace  in  the  presence  of  the 
bishops,  as  though  they  did  either  envy  or  scorn  to  hear  them, 
contrary  to  the  apostle,'3  &c.  Gregory  thus  speaks,  in  his  Pas- 
torals ;  prcedictionis  officium  suscipit,  quis-quis  ad  sacerdotium 
accedit :  whosoever  taketh  priesthood  upon  him,  taketh  upon 
him  also  the  office  of  preaching.'4  '  Seeing  to  you,'  says 
Gregory  of  Nyssa, '  and  to  such  as  you,  adorned  with  hoary 
wisdom  from  above,  and  who  are  presbyters  indeed,  and 
justly  styled  the  fathers  of  the  church,  the  word  of  God  con- 
ducts us  to  learn  the  doctrines  of  salvation,  saying,  ask  thy 
father  and  he  will  show  thee ;  thy  elders,  and  they  will  tell 
thee.'5  And  so  also  the  first  council  of  Aquisgranense,  A.  D. 
816,  most  explicitly  attributes  to  presbyters  the  function  of 
preaching,  and  of  administering  the  sacraments.6 

It  was,  in  fact,  the  general  doctrine  of  all  the  fathers,  that 
the  words  addressed  by  Christ  to  Peter,  '  feed  my  sheep,'  were 
addressed  to  all  the  ministers  of  Christ;7  and  thus  Suicer, in 
entering  upon  his  illustration  of  the  term  presbyter  from 
the  Greek  fathers,  defines  presbyters  as  those  to  whom  is 
committed  the  word  of  God  or  the  preaching  of  the  gospel.' s 

It  is  thus  manifest,  that  preaching  is  the  great  work  and  duty 
to  which,  as  ministers  of  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  presbyters  are 
consecrated. 9  But  this  is  also  allowed  to  have  been  the  first 
and  most  essential  prerogative  of  the  apostles,  and  that  which 
they  themselves  ranked  higher  than  all  their  spiritual  and  extra- 
ordinary gifts,  and  invested  with  which  they  exerted  all  their 
powers,  publicly  and  privately,  to  preach  the  gospel  to  the 
utmost  compass  of  their  commission.10     Preaching  also  was 

1)  Sermons  in  England,  p.  251.         view  by  Basil  the    Great,  in  ibid,  p. 

2)  Concil.  Aquisgranens,  cap.  8,     120. 

ex.   Isid.  in  Willet,  p.  271.     See  also  6)  See  can.   8,  in    Binii    Concil. 

Constantinop.  cap.  8,  9,  and  95,  c.  6,  Tom.  vi.  p.  241,  c.  2,  A. 

in  ibid.  7)  Palmer  on  the  Church,  vol.  ii. 

3)  Ibid,  in  ibid.  p.  488. 

4)  Fox,  p.  iv.  respons.  ad.   artic.  8)  Thesaurus,  vol.  ii.  p.  825. 

22,  col.  2.  9)  See    authorities    in     Hender- 

5)  See  in  Dr.  Wilson's  Prim.  Govt,     son's  Rev.  p.  122. 

of  the  Ch.  p.  136.     See  also  a  similar  10)  Acts,  5:20,  21,42  ;  20:20,21, 

with  Rom.  15:  19;  Col.  1  :23. 


CHAP.  V.]  COMMISSIONED    TO    PREACH.  127 

considered  their  great  work  and  duty  by  the  bishops  of  the 
Cyprianic  and  previous  ages,  as  has  been  most  abundantly 
proved.1  Preaching,  in  short,  is  now  generally  acknowledged 
to  be  the  chief  ordinance  and  instrumentality,  by  which  God 
secures  the  salvation  of  sinners.  '  It  hath  pleased  God,  by 
the  foolishness  of  preaching,  to  save  them  that  believe ;  faith 
cometh  by  hearing,  and  hearing  by  the  preaching  of  the  word ; ' 
'  and  Christ,'  says  Paul,  '  sent  or  commissioned  me  not  to 
baptize,  but  to  preach  the  gospel.'2  It  is  to  preaching,  Chris- 
tianity owes  its  origin ;  its  continuance ;  its  progress ;  its 
reformation  ;  and  its  present  extending  revival.3  '  It  is,'  says 
Gregory  Nazianzen, 'the  principal  thing  that  belongs  to  us 
ministers  of  the  gospel.'4  Erasmus,  after  comparing  the  offices 
of  the  ministry,  gives  the  preeminence  to  preaching.  For  six 
hundred  years,  as  Whitaker  would  prove,  the  church  dis- 
owned, as  worthy  bishops,  those  who  were  either  unable  or 
unwilling  to  preach. 6  The  thirty-sixth  of  the  apostolic  canons, 
requires  the  bishop,  who  was  not  diligent  in  teaching,  to  be 
laid  aside  ;  while  the  thirty-ninth  also  intrusts  the  bishop  with 
the  people's  souls.  '  So  worthy  a  part  of  divine  service  we 
should  greatly  wrong,'  says  Hooker,  '  if  we  did  not  esteem 
preaching  as  the  blessed  ordinance  of  God ;  sermons  as  keys 
to  the  kingdom  of  heaven,  as  wings  to  the  soul,  as  spurs  to 
the  good  affections  of  man,  with  the  sound  and  healthy  as 
food,  as  physic  unto  diseased  souls.'7 

Preaching,  therefore,  being  the  chief  power  and  character- 
istic of  the  apostles,8  and  the  principal  key  to  the  kingdom  of 
heaven,  cannot  be  usurped  without  treasonable  impiety; 
neither  can  it  be  delegated  to  any  order  of  men  to  whom 
Christ  has  not  given  it.  But  this  power,  in  all  its  plenitude, 
has,  we  have  seen,  been  committed,  by  divine  authority,  to 
the  order  of  presbyters.  It  has  also  been  exercised  by  them, 
from  the  days  of  the  apostles,  until  the  present  time.  And 
hence  do  we  conclude  that  presbyters  are  the  only  true  and 
lawful  successors  of  the  apostles. 

This  seems  to  be  the  plain  and  undoubted  teaching  of 
scripture  itself.  For  when  the  apostle  Paul  had  sent  his 
com-presbyter  Timothy,  who,  like  himself,  had  been  ordained 
by  presbyters,  to  set  in  order  and  fully  organize  the  Asiatic 

1)  See  a  large    collection  of  au-  4)   Orat.  1. 

thorities  in  Jameson's    Cyp.   Isot.   p.  5)  Erasm.Eccles.  lib.  i. 

456,  &c.  6)  De  Eccl.  contro.  2,  cap.  3. 

2)  See  Bowles's  Past.  Evang.  lib.  7)  Eccl.  Pol.  B.  v.  §  22. 

ii.  c.  1 ;  Fuller's   Church  Hist.  B.  ix. ;  8)  St.    Augustine   makes  it    the 

and  Bridge's  Ch.  Min.  p.  193,  8vo.  ed.    proper  mark  of  a  bishop  to  preach  De 

3)  Douglas's  Adv.  of  Soc.  offic.  i.  c.  1. 


128  PRESBYTERS    APPOINTED    TO  [BOOK  I. 

churches,  he  gave  him  these  instructions :  '  and  the  things 
that  thou  hast  heard  of  me  among  many  witnesses,  the  same 
commit  thou  to  faithful  men,  who  shall  be  able  to  teach  oth- 
ers also.'  (2  Tim.  2  :  2.)  Here  the  existence  of  a  ministe- 
rial succession,  and  its  general  nature,  are  distinctly  stated. 
We  have  here,  also,  the  chain  of  this  succession,  as  far  as  the 
close  of  the  second  century,  clearly  marked  out  by  the  Holy 
Spirit  himself.  The  great  deposit,  to  be  thus  carried  down  to 
the  end  of  time,  is  the  christian  doctrine,  as  preached  by  men 
authorized  to  proclaim  and  make  it  known. x  To  commit  this 
truth  to  an  order  of  men  who  should  take  charge  of  the  sev- 
eral churches  ;  and  who  might,  in  turn,  commit  it  unto  others 
also,  was  the  great  end  of  the  apostle,  in  the  commission  of 
Timothy.  It  was  in  this  way  these  apostles  and  evangelists 
fulfilled  their  purpose,  in  preparing  the  churches  for  the  ordi- 
nary ministry  of  the  gospel,  and  thus  completing  the  organi- 
zation of  the  christian  body.2  This  ministry,  Timothy  was 
to  organize,  and  then  leave  them  to  ordain  and  appoint  their 
successors  in  the  preaching  of  the  gospel.  Now,  who  were 
they,  to  whom,  by  express  apostolic  authority,  this  power 
and  office  was  intrusted?  Without  controversy,  they  were 
presbyters.  Presbyters  alone  are  described  by  the  apostle, 
when  he  proceeds  fully  to  delineate  the  character,  qualifica- 
tions, and  duties  of  the  ministry  to  be  appointed.3  '  For  this 
cause,'  did  the  apostle  leave  Titus  in  Crete,  and  send  Timothy 
to  Ephesus,  '  that  they  should  set  in  order  the  things  that  were 
wanting,'  to  a  full  and  permanent  organization  of  the  churches, 
'and  ordain  presbyters  in  every  city,  as  he  had  appointed.4 
The  first  ministerial  succession,  permanently  appointed  in  the 
christian  church,  was,  therefore,  that  of  presbyters.  And  the 
next  link  in  this  golden  chain,  by  which  the  truth  was  to  be 
borne  downwards  to  every  age,  was  a  succession  of  other 
presbyters,  appointed  by  these  first  presbyters.  And  hence, 
since  the  great  burden  of  the  apostolic  commission,  was 
preaching,  and  this  great  duty  is  so  plainly  committed  to  pres- 
byters, we  are  infallibly  taught,  that  a  presbyterial  succession 
is,  by  the  express  authority  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  constituted 
the  true  and  only  permanent  ministeral  order  in  the  church 
of  Christ. 

If,  therefore,  there  is  but  one  ministerial  order  in  the  church 
of  Christ,  it  must  be  that   of  presbyters.     Should  there  be 

1)  See    (Ecumenius   and    Chrys-  2)  Eph.  4  :  11— 14,  and  p.  33,  &c. 

ostom  in  loco,  and  the  schoolmen   in  3)  1  Tim.  3  :  1,  &c,  and  Titus  1 : 

Confut.  of  I.  S.  Cyprianic  age,  p.  147.  6,  &c. 

See  also   Letters  on  the  Fathers,  p.  3.  4)  Titus  1  :  6,  &c 


CHAP.    V.]  CONDUCT    PUBLIC    WORSHIP.  129 

more  orders  than  one,  then,  since  the  principal  and  chiefest 
function  of  the  ministry  is  committed  to  presbyters,  this  order 
must  rank  as  the  first  and  highest.  And  the  very  fact,  that, 
in  after  ages,  prelates  usurped  this  power  of  preaching  to 
themselves,  under  the  pretext  of  preventing  heresies ;  and  de- 
nied to  presbyters  this  original  power  with  which  they  were 
invested  by  the  express  authority  of  God  ;  is  proof  strong  as 
holy  writ,  of  the  introduction  of  a  new  order  into  the  church, 
for  the  support  of  whose  dignity,  it  became  necessary  to 
trample  upon  the  instituted  laws  of  God. 1 

§  2.    Presbyters  are  divinely  authorized  to  conduct  the  public 
worship  of  God. 

The  second  religious  function  which  has  been  appropri- 
ated to  the  christian  ministry,  and  which  has  always,  says 
Potter,  'been  reckoned  an  essential  part  of  the  sacerdotal 
office,  is  the  offering  to  God  the  prayers  of  the  church,'  in  the 
public  celebration  of  divine  worship.2  'Again,'  he  says,  'this 
has  always  been  reckoned  one  chief  duty  of  the  sacerdotal 
office  in  the  christian  church.'3  It  is  thus  associated,  as  their 
two  principal  duties,  by  the  apostles,  with  preaching,  when 
they  declare  that  they  will  give  themselves  continually  to 
prayer  and  to  the  ministry  of  the  word.'    Acts,  6  :   4. 

Now  that  this  function,  as  well  as  preaching,  is  inherent  in 
the  presbyterate  as  an  order  in  the  church,  is  unquestionable. 
The  fact  that  it  is  so,  as  Potter  himself  proves,  has  never  been 
questioned  in  the  church.  That  presbyters  officiated  in  this 
essential  sacerdotal  function,  under  immediate  divine  direc- 
tion and  apostolic  sanction,  this  same  writer  also  certifies. 
For  he  informs  us,  that  'the  prophets  and  teachers  at  Antioch, 
whom  he  had  previously  declared  to  be  presbyters,  are  said 
Unovqyeiv  tw  xvqiw,  to  minister  to  the  Lord,  and  fast;  where 
ministering  to  the  Lord  is  meant  of  praying,  as  appears,  not 
only  because  it  is  joined  with  fasting,  but  also  because  this 
and  the  like  expressions  are  commonly  used  in  that  sense.'4 

St.  James  directs  the  sick  to  call  for  the  presbyters  to  pray 
and  to  intercede  for  them,  with  the  promise  of  success.  (Jas. 
5 :  14.)  And  the  four  and  twenty  presbyters  in  the  Book  of 
Revelations,  who  represent,  says  Potter,5  the  ministers  of  the 

1)     That  this  is  a  Popish  doctrine,  2)  On  Church  Govt.  p.  221. 

see  Bellarmine  de.  Cler.  capp.  13,  14.  3)  Ibid,  p.   223. 

And  that  the  English  Church  contro-  4)  Ibid,  p.   224-226,  and   King's 

verts   this  doctrine,  see    affirmed  by  Prim.  Christ. 

Dr.    Willet,   Syn.    Pap.   contr-   52.  3.  5)  On  the  Church,  pp.  223,  224. 

part  2,  p.  232. 

17 


130  PRESBYTERS    WERE  [BOOK   I. 

christian  church,  are  described  as  having  golden  vials  full  of 
incense,  which  is  the  prayers  of  the  saints,  and  which  it  is 
their  privilege  to  offer  unto  God.  (Rev.  5:  3.)  'Feed  the 
flock  of  God,  which  is  among  you,'  says  Peter,  to  the  presby- 
ters he  addressed,  '  taking  the  oversight  thereof.'  1  Pet.  5 :  2, 
3.  So  also  did  the  apostle  Paul  solemnly  impose  upon  the 
Ephesian  presbyters,  whatever  duties  are  involved  'in  feeding 
the  flock  of  God,  over  which  the  Holy  Ghost  hath  made  them 
overseers.'  '  Therefore,'  says  the  apostle,  admonishing  them  of 
the  coming  dangers  of  the  church,  'watch,  and  remember  that 
by  the  space  of  three  years  I  ceased  not  to  warn  every  one, 
night  and  day,  with  tears.'  Acts,  20 :  31.  The  office  of  inter- 
cession, as  the  minister  of  Christ,  in  the  public  offering  up  of 
prayer,  in  the  worship  of  God,  which  is  the  second  essential 
function  appropriated  to  the  christian  ministry,  belongs,  there- 
fore, by  divine  right,  to  the  presbyterate.  And  since  it  will 
be  plain,  to  any  one  who  will  attentively  read  the  apostolic 
records,  that  the  apostles  placed  the  essence  of  their  ministry 
in  the  proclamation  of  the  gospel,  and  in  intercession  with 
God,1  presbyters,  being  fully  empowered  to  discharge  both 
these  offices,  as  God  shall  enable  them,  are  the  successors  of 
the  apostles,  in  their  most  eminent  gifts,  as  ordinary  ministers 
of  the  church  of  Christ. 

§  3.     Presbyters  are  divinely  authorized  to  baptize. 

The  third  branch  of  sacerdotal  authority,  the  possession  of 
which  is  believed  to  characterize  the  order  of  prelates,  is  the 
power  of  receiving  members  into  the  church  of  Christ,  by 
baptism,  which  is  the  key  of  entrance,  and  the  initiating  ordi- 
nance of  the  christian  church. 

Now  this  power  is  expressly  contained  in  that  commission, 
by  which  the  christian  ministry  was  originally  instituted,  and 
of  course,  inheres  in  all  who  are  authorized,  by  that  charter, 
to  labor  in  the  ministry  of  the  gospel.  But  as  there  is  but 
one  commission,  and  one  order  of  duties,  committed  by  it  to 
those  to  whom  it  is  addressed,  it  follows,  that  there  can  be 
but  one  order  of  ministers,  as  to  all  essential  powers,  what- 
ever variety  there  may  be  among  them  from  accidtMital  qual- 
ities, or  from  human  appointment.  And  since  presbyters  are, 
unquestionably,  an  order  of  divinely  appointed  ministers,  all 

1)  See  Acts,  G:  4  ;  John,  21 :  15;  For  prayer,  see  Rom.  1  :  8-12,  and  10  : 

Acts,20:  17-20,  and  28:  31;  Rom.  15:  1,  and  15:   5,  6,  13,  30-33;   1   Cor.  1  : 

16;  1  Cor.  3:  9-11,  and  4:  1-2;  1  Cor.  4-S ;    Eph.  1:    15-23,  and   3:    14-21; 

9:  16,  and  16:  10;   2  Cor.  5:  19,20;  1  Phil.  1 :  8-11;  Col.  1 :  9-14;  1  Thess. 

Tim.  2  :  7,  and  4 :  6,  11,  16,  and  5:17.  1 :  2-4,  &c,  &c. 


CHAP.  V.]  COMMISSIONED    TO    BAPTIZE.  131 

the  powers  expressed  in  this  commission  must  be  of  divine 
right  theirs.  They  are,  therefore,  empowered  to  '  go,  and  teach 
all  nations,  baptizing  them.'  Thus  also  our  Saviour  him- 
self commissioned  his  disciples,  both  the  seventy  and  the 
twelve,  to  baptize,  as  well  as  to  preach,  for  'Jesus  baptized  not, 
but  his  disciples.'  John,  4  :  2.  Now,  as  prelates  will  insist  that 
these  seventy  were  distinct  from  the  twelve,  in  being  presby- 
ters, and  not  prelates,  it  follows,  that  even  on  prelatic  princi- 
ples, presbyters  are  competent  to  baptize.  And  this  Hooker 
openly  teaches,  for  he  asserts  that '  Christ  himself  consecrated 
seventy  others  of  his  own  disciples,  inferior  presbyters,  whose 
commission  to  preach  and  baptize  was  the  same  which  the 
apostles  had.'1  Of  course,  if  their  commission  was  the  same, 
their  power  also  was  the  same.  We  read  also,  that  St.  Paul, 
when  converted,  was  baptized  by  Ananias,  whom  some 
represent  as  one  of  these  seventy,  and  therefore  a  presbyter ; 
and  others,  one  of  the  prophets,  who,  as  we  have  seen,  are  also 
admitted  to  have  been  of  the  order  of  presbyters,  and  thus  it 
would  appear,  that  since  the  validity  of  baptism  is  essential  to 
a  valid  consecration  to  the  ministry,  and  since  the  greater 
number  of  churches  in  western  Christendom  may  trace  their 
first  original,  directly  or  indirectly,  to  the  apostle  Paul,  that, 
therefore,  the  validity  of  the  ministry,  as  now  existing  in  all 
these  churches,  must  ultimately  depend  on  the  validity  of  pres- 
byterial  baptism,  for  that  Ananias  was  an  apostle,  or  of  the 
order  of  prelates,  is  admitted  to  be  impossible. 2 

It  is  also  recorded  that  Philip  —  as  Mr.  Potter  affirms  even 
while  a  deacon  — baptized  the  Samaritans,  and  the  Ethiopian 
eunuch,  Acts,  8 :  12,  38.  Now,  if  Philip  was,  at  this  time, 
no  more  than  a  deacon,  and  had  not,  as  we  believe,  been 
ordained  a  presbyter  since  his  consecration  as  a  deacon, 
then  it  will  follow,  that  if  the  power  of  administering  baptism 
belongs  to  deacons,  much  more,  certainly,  must  it  be  the 
rightful  prerogative  of  presbyters.  Thus,  again,  we  are  told 
in  Acts,  18 :  8,  that  '  many  of  the  Corinthians,  hearing,  be- 
lieved, and  were  baptized.'  But,  in  his  first  epistle  to  the 
Corinthians,  Paul  reminds  them,  that  he  baptized  only  Cris- 
pus,  and  the  household  of  Stephanus,  1  Cor.  1 :  14,  and 
therefore,  these  '  many '  must  have  been  baptized  by  his 
attendant  ministers,  who  were  not  apostles,  but  presbyters. 
In  his  epistle  to  the  Ephesians,  4:  5,  the  apostle  exhorts  them 
to  '  walk  worthy  of  that  vocation,  wherewith  they  had  been 
called,  even  as  they  were  called  in  one  Lord,  one  faith,  one 

1)  Eccl.  Polity,  B.  v.  §  77.  2)  Potter  on  Ch.  Govt.  p.  227. 


132  PRESBYTERS    AUTHORIZED  [BOOK    I, 

baptism.'  Now,  as  appears  distinctly  from  Acts,  20 :  28,  the 
ministers,  whom  the  apostle  left  at  Ephesus,  to  feed  the 
church  of  God,  and  take  oversight  thereof,  were  presbyters. 
Presbyters,  therefore,  received  members  into  that  church  by 
the  administration  of  baptism.  It  is  also  admitted,  that, 
in  some  of  the  churches,  as  at  Philippi,  for  some  time,  at  least, 
after  their  organization,  there  were  no  other  ministers  ordained 
over  them  than  presbyters,  with  the  officers  who  were  called 
deacons.  But  as  it  is  plain  no  church  could  be  organized, 
or  collected  together,  without  the  administration  of  baptism, 
this  ordinance  must  have  been  administered  by  presbyters. 

But  it  is  unnecessary  to  enlarge  in  proof  of  the  inherent 
right  of  presbyters  to  baptize,  since,  however  in  after  ages 
some  prelates  have  endeavored  to  usurp,  as  exclusively  theirs, 
this  and  all  other  ministerial  powers,  archbishop  Potter  grants, 
'  that,  in  the  primitive  ages,  presbyters  baptized  as  well  as 
bishops,  but  the  practice  of  the  church  has  varied  as  to  dea- 
cons. ' x  And,  since  it  is  at  once  evident,  that  all  who  believed, 
together  with  their  children,  have  a  right  to  be  baptized,  they 
who  are  authorized  to  disciple  men,  are,  also,  of  necessity, 
competent  to  baptize  them.  The  right  of  administering  bap- 
tism being,  therefore,  another  essential  part  of  ministerial 
authority;  and  presbyters  being  plainly  invested  with  it; 
presbyters,  in  this  respect,  also,  are  the  successors  of  the 
apostles. 

§  4.    Presbyters   are  divinely  authorized  to   administer  the 
Lord's  supper. 

We  proceed  to  the  consideration  of  the  fourth  branch  of 
sacerdotal  authority,  to  the  exclusive  possession  of  which 
prelates  lay  claim,  and  that  is  the  administration  of  the  Lord's 
supper,  or,  as  they  fondly  term  it,  '  the  consecration  of  the 
eucharistic  sacrifice.'  Now,  that  this  power  was  resident  in 
the  presbyters  of  the  apostolic  churches,  we  might  demon- 
strate, by  a  repetition  of  the  arguments  employed  on  the  sub- 
ject of  baptism.  For,  as  baptism  and  the  Lord's  supper  are 
the  two  divinely  instituted  sacraments  of  the  christian  church, 
the  one  the  ordinance  of  initiation,  the  other  of  confirmation, 
and  both,  the  signs  and  seals  of  the  covenant  of  grace ;  it 
is  at  once  manifest,  that  he  who  is  the  appointed  minister  of 
the  one  ordinance,  must  be  also  competent  to  administer  the 
other.     '  The  sacraments,  being  seals,  annexed  by  Christ  to 

1)  On  Ch-  Govt,  see  p.  227.      See  King's  Prim.  Christianity. 


CHAP.  V.]  TO    ADMINISTER    THE    LORD'S    SUPPER.  133 

the  word  of  his  grace,  and  visible  words,  are  evidently  to  be 
dispensed  by  those  to  whom  the  dispensation  of  the  word  is 
committed.' x  In  the  Corinthian  church,  '  when  no  minister 
above  the  order  of  prophets,  who  were  next  below  the  apos- 
tles, was  there,  the  eucharist  was  administered,  nor  was 
this  power  so  strictly  appropriated  to  the  apostles,  but  that  it 
might  be  lawfully  executed  by  the  ministers  of  the  second 
order.'2  Now,  it  is  impossible  to  conceive  a  more  formal  or 
solemn  investment  with  the  power  of  administering  this 
sacred  ordinance,  than  that  with  which  the  apostle  Paul 
clothes  these  Corinthian  presbyters.  1  Cor.  11:  23-26. 
'  For  I  have  received  of  the  Lord,  that  which  also  I  delivered 
unto  you,  that  the  Lord  Jesus,  the  same  night  in  which  he 
was  betrayed,  took  bread,  &c.  For  as  often  as  ye  eat  this 
bread,  and  drink  this  cup,  ye  do  shew  the  Lord's  death  till  he 
comes.'  It  is  here  apparent  that  this  ordinance  was  to  be 
perpetuated  until  the  coming  of  Christ,  and  being  intrusted 
to  the  administration  of  presbyters,  presbyters  must  ever  con- 
tinue to  enjoy  the  same  power,  unless  it  can  be  shown  that  it 
has  been  withdrawn  by  some  special  commission  given  to  the 
order  of  prelates,  which,  with  all  our  diligence,  we  have  not 
yet  found  in  the  word  of  God. 

That  this  power  was  exercised  not  only  at  Corinth,  at 
Philippi,  and  in  those  churches  where  no  force  of  construc- 
tion can  make  out  the  appearance  of  a  prelate  ;  but,  generally, 
also,  in  all  the  apostolic  churches,  is  apparent,  not  only  for 
the  reasons  already  given,  but  also  from  what  we  read  in  Acts, 
20:  7-11,  where  we  are  informed,  that  it  was  when  the  dis- 
ciples were  come  together  to  break  bread  —  as,  we  are  to 
presume,  they  regularly  did  —  the  apostle  preached  unto  them. 

It  is,  therefore,  plain,  that,  by  the  teaching  of  the  word  of 
God,  it  belongs  to  presbyters,  as  an  order  of  the  christian 
ministry,  authoritatively  to  preach  the  gospel,  and  thus  to  call 
sinners  to  repentance ;  to  offer  up  prayers  in  the  congrega- 
tions of  the  people,  interceding  on  their  behalf,  with  God 
most  high  ;  having  instrumentally  brought  any  to  the  knowl- 
edge of  the  truth,  to  receive  them,  and  their  infant  seed,  into 
the  bosom  of  the  christian  church,  by  baptism ;  and  also  to 
administer  to  all  who  are  fit  and  worthy  recipients,  the  sacra- 
ment of  the  Lord's  supper,  for  the  increase  and  confirmation 
of  their  faith. 

But  they  who  are  authorized  to  administer  the  sacraments, 
cannot,  on  prelatical  principles,  be  two  orders,  but  one  ;  and 

1)  Corbet,  on  the  Church,  p.  38.  2)  Potter  on  Ch.  Govt.  p.  235. 


134  PRESBYTERS    AND    THE    SACRAMENTS.  [BOOK  I. 

since  presbyters,  as  well  as  bishops,  are  thus  entitled  to  offi- 
ciate, presbyters  and  prelates  are,  and  must  be,  on  these  princi- 
ples, one  and  the  same  order.  Thus  speaks  Johnson,  in  his 
Unbloody  Sacrifice. l  '  The  eucharist  is  one,  as  offered  by 
priests,  who  are  one  by  their  commission.  It  was  upon 
this  account  that  Ignatius,  Cyprian,  and  others,  represent  the 
whole  college  of  bishops  throughout  the  whole  world,  as  one 
person,  sitting  in  one  chair,  attending  one  altar;  and  that, 
therefore,  is  the  one  eucharist,  which  is  celebrated  by  this  one 
priesthood.'  There  is,  then,  but  one  divinely  commissioned 
order  of  ministers,  which  is  that  of  presbyters,  who  must  be, 
therefore,  the  only  true  and  valid  successors  of  the  apostles. 
And  thus  much  does  bishop  Sanderson  allow,  when  he  in- 
cludes, under  '  the  ministerial  power,  which  is  common  to  bish- 
ops with  their  fellow-presbyters,'  and  which  '  is  confessed  to 
be  from  heaven,  and  God,'  'the  preaching  of  the  word, 
and  the  administration  of  sacraments.'2 

Since,  then,  as  bishop  Burnet  argues,  'the  sacramental 
actions  are  the  highest  of  sacred  performances,  those  that  are 
empowered  for  them  must  be  of  the  highest  office  in  the 
church,'3  and,  therefore,  presbyters  must  be  the  true  and  only 
successors  of  the  apostles. 

1)  Part  ii.  chap.  3,  Oxf.  Tr.vol.iii.  Episcop.  in  Anglican  Fathers,  vol.  i. 
p.  157.      See    also  '  Dodwell's     One  p.  305.     See  also  307. 
Priesthood,'  One  Altar.  3)  See  in   Boyse's  Anct  Episc. 

2)  On    the    Div.    Right    of   the  p.  250. 


CHAPTER   VI. 


PRESBYTERS  ARE   CLOTHED,   BY   DIVINE   RIGHT,   WITH   THE 
POWER   OF  ECCLESIASTICAL  JURISDICTION. 


§  1.     The  power  of  jurisdiction  explained. 

A  fifth  branch  of  spiritual  authority  claimed  for  prelates, 
is  that  which  may  be  denominated  the  power  of  jurisdiction, 
discipline,  or  government,  including  whatever  is  necessary  to 
the  preservation  of  order,  and  the  regulation  of  all  affairs, 
within  that  society  ofxhristians  denominated  a  church.  As 
the  former  powers  already  treated  of,  are  necessary  to  the  due 
organization,  and  spiritual  edification  of  the  church,  so  is  this 
essential  to  its  oversight,  to  its  external  prosperity,  and  to  the 
removal  of  whatever  would  lead  to  internal  disorganization 
and  injury.  This  power  extends  to  the  making  of  any  regu- 
lations touching  the  worship  and  ordinances  of  God,  which 
do  not  interfere  with  the  authority  of  Christ,  as  expressed  in 
his  word,  or  which  do  not  go  to  alter  their  nature,  or  to  cir- 
cumscribe them  within  any  narrower  limits  than  those  which 
have  been  assigned  by  their  divine  author.  It  also  applies 
to  the  enforcement  of  the  laws  of  the  church,  whether  these 
are  of  divine  appointment,  or  of  ecclesiastical  origin,  so  far 
as  these  are  framed  according  to  the  suggestions  above  speci- 
fied. Whatever,  therefore,  is  necessary  to  the  incorporation 
of  a  christian  church  ;  to  the  government  of  its  members  ;  to 
the  dispensation  of  its  ordinances  ;  to  the  infliction  of  its  cen- 
sures ;  or  to  the  final  excommunication  of  its  obstinate  offend- 
ers ;  all  this  is  to  be  regarded  as  included  under  the  power  of 
spiritual  jurisdiction,  or,  as  it  is  called  by  divines  of  the  olden 
times,  the  key  of  discipline. 


136  THE    POWER    OF    JURISDICTION  [BOOK  I. 


§  2.     Proofs  that  this  power  of  jurisdiction  belongs  to  pres- 
byters by  divine  right. 

Now  that  this  power  also  is  ascribed  to  presbyters  in  the 
New  Testament,  we  proceed  to  render  proof.  This  power, 
as  has  been  seen,1  is  certainly  comprehended,  in  a  summary 
manner,  in  the  commission  of  our  Lord.  For,  as  all  power 
was  given  unto  him,  so  does  he  therein  promise  to  be  with 
his  ministers  unto  the  end  of  the  world,  in  authoritatively 
enabling  them  to  observe,  and  to  enforce,  whatsoever  he  has 
commanded.  And  if  this  commission  is  the  warrant,  as  it  is, 
by  which  presbyters  hold  their  ministerial  office,  then  must 
they  be  empowered  with  this  authority  of  spiritual  jurisdic- 
tion. When  Peter  confessed  our  Lord  to  be  the  son  of  God, 
Christ  declared,  that  upon  the  high  mystery  which  Peter  had 
thus  proclaimed,  He  would  build  his  church,  He,  that  is,  Christ 
himself,  being  the  chief  corner  stone  ;  and  that  he  would  give 
to  Peter,  and  to  all  others  who  should  hereafter  succeed  him 
in  this  work  of  the  minsitry,  the  keys  of  the  kingdom  of 
heaven,  so  that  whatsoever  they  shall  bind  on  earth,  shall  be 
bound  in  heaven,  and  whatsoever  they  shall  loose  on  earth, 
shall  be  loosed  in  heaven.  Matt.  16  :  19.  Now  that  this 
divine  promise  of  spiritual  jurisdiction  was  given,  not  to  Peter 
personally,  but  to  Peter  representatively  of  the  ministers  of 
the  church  of  Christ  in  all  ages,  is  maintained  most  stren- 
uously by  all  christian  churches,  the  Romish  alone  excepted. 
But,  in  whatever  way  the  assumed  supremacy  of  Peter  is 
disproved,  as  it  most  assuredly  has  been,  the  equally  baseless 
supremacy  claimed  by  prelates  may  be  also  overthrown. 
The  learned  Roman  Catholic  writer,  Du  Pin,  affirms,  '  that 
the  ancient  fathers,  with  a  unanimous  consent,  teach,  that 
the  keys  were  given  to  the  whole  church,  in  the  person  of 
Peter.'  '  This  is  the  doctrine,'  says  Mr.  Palmer,2  'of  Tertul- 
lian,  Cyprian,  Jerome,  Optatus,  Gaudentius,  Ambrose, 
Augustine,  Fulgentius,  Theophylact,  Eucherius,  Bede,  Raba- 
nus  Maurus,  Lyranus,  Hincmar,  Odo,  Petrus  Blensens,  and 
others  innumerable.'3  It  was,  in  fact,  the  general  doctrine  of 
all  the  fathers,  that  these  words  were  not  addressed  to  Peter 
only,  but  to  all  the  ministers  of  Jesus  Christ.  Tournely, 
Dupin,  Natalia  Alexander,  and  Launoy,  quote  Ambrose, 
Augustine,    Chrysostom,   Basil,  <Scc,  in  proof,  that  not  only 

J)  See  chap.  iii.  3)  Du  Tin,  De  Antiq.  Ecclesiae 

2)  Palmer    on    the    Ch.    vol.    ii.     Discipl.  p.  309.     Barrow,  Treatise  on 
P-  485.  Pope's  supremacy,  p.  587. 


CHAP.  VI.]  BELONGS    TO    PRESBYTERS.  137 

Peter,  but  all  the  apostles,  and  their  successors,  were  com- 
manded to  feed  ihe  flock.  Barrow  adds  the  testimony  of 
Cyprian,  Cyril  of  Alexandria,  and  others,  to  the  same  effect. 
'  Our  Lord's  declaration,  therefore,'  to  use  the  words  of 
archbishop  Whateley,1 '  will  amount  to  this,  that  the  governors 
in  each  branch  of  the  church  which  he  founded  —  of  the 
kingdom  appointed  to  his  disciples,  with  whom,  and  conse- 
quently with  their  successors,  he  promised  to  be  always,  even 
unto  the  end  of  the  world  —  that  these  governors  should  have 
power  to  make  regulations  for  the  good  government  of  lhat 
society,  to  admit,  or  refuse  admission  into  it,  and  to  establish 
such  rules  as  they  might  think  suitable,  for  the  edification  of 
its  members,  and  their  decorous  worship  of  God  ;  and  that 
such  regulations  of  Christ's  servants  on  earth  should  be  rat- 
ified, and  sanctioned,  by  ihe  authority  of  their  unseen  and 
spiritual  master,  should  be  bound  in  heaven  by  him.'  This 
power  of  ihe  keys  is  obviously  the  government  of  the  king- 
dom of  heaven,  ihe  opening  and  shutting  the  church.  It  is  a 
figurative  expression  of  that  authority  which  is  more  clearlv, 
but  synonymously,  expressed  in  our  Lord's  ascending  com- 
mission, and  elsewhere,  and  which  he  committed  to  the 
aDostles,  and  to  their  successors  in  the  ministry,  to  the  end  of 
the  world.  Matt.  1G :  19,  and  18:  18,  and  19:  20.  John, 
20:  21  —  23.  We  are  to  understand,  therefore,  by  the  keys, 
that  slewardly  ministerial  power  with  which  christian  teachers 
are  intrusted,  as  keys  were  committed,  as  badges  of  power, 
to  stewards,  who  were,  in  ancient  times,  appointed  as  over- 
seers of  ihe  affairs  of  some  extensive  household.  Thus  are 
Christ's  instituted  ordinances,  the  preaching  of  the  word,  ihe 
administration  of  ordinances,  and  the  infliction  or  remittance 
of  censures,  the  keys,  by  the  right  use  of  which  the  gates  of 
the  church  on  earth,  and  of  heaven  itself,  are  opened  or  shut, 
to  believers  or  unbelievers.  With  ihe  power  of  administering 
these  laws  of  ihe  kingdom,  Christ  has  invested  his  ministers, 
as  stewards  of  the  mysteries  of  God :  (1  Cor.  4 :  1,)  so  that, 
whatever  spiritual  jurisdiction  is  implied  in  these  promises  of 
Christ  to  his  apostles,  as  representatives  of  all  future  ministers 
of  ihe  church,  must  necessarily  descend  to  their  successors, 
ihe  ordinary,  and  standing  teachers,  by  whom  the  churches 
were  to  be  guided  and  upheld.  Now  the  apostle  declares 
most  plainly,  that  '  God  hath  set  some  in  the  church,  first 
apostles,  secondly  prophets,  thirdly  teachers,  and  these  for 
helps  and  governments,'  1   Cor.  12:  28;    thus  teaching  us 

1)  Whateley  on  Origin  of  Romish  Errors,  p.  171. 

18 


13S  PRESBYTERS    ARE    CLOTHED  [BOOK  I. 

that  the  successors  of  the  apostles  are  to  be  found  in  the 
prophets  and  teachers,  who  should  be  raised  up  for  the  help 
and  government  of  the  church.  But,  as  we  have  already 
seen,  it  is  admitted  and  insisted  upon,  by  prelatists  themselves, 
that  these  prophets  and  teachers  were  presbyters,1  and  that, 
in  the  church  of  Corinth,  there  was,  at  this  time,  no  order 
above  that  of  presbyters.2  Presbyters,  therefore,  being  the 
lineal  successors  of  the  apostles,  and  united  with  them  in  the 
foundation  of  the  christian  church,  must  be,  of  course,  the 
perpetuators  of  that  spiritual  authority  with  which  Christ  has 
invested  the  rulers  of  his  visible  kingdom  upon  earth. 

If  a  succession  to  the  ordinary  power  and  character  of  the 
apostles  is  at  all  necessary,  or  essential  to  the  perpetuity  of 
the  church  of  Christ,  it  must  be  to  the  whole  of  that  ordinary 
ministerial  character,  and  not  to  a  part  merely  ;  otherwise, 
only  a  part  of  it,  and  not  the  entire  office,  is  of  perpetual  obli- 
gation, or  necessity.  But  if  the  ruling,  as  well  as  the  teach- 
ing, power  of  the  apostles  is  a  permanent  gift  to  the  church, 
then  is  it  clear,  that  whoever  is  properly  invested  with  the 
apostolic  power  of  authoritatively  teaching  in  the  church  of 
God,  is,  at  the  same  time,  clothed  with  the  apostolic  power 
of  ruling.  Indeed,  pastoral  ruling  is  by  teaching,  '  so  that 
every  authoritative  church  teacher  is  a  pastor ;  for  the  pastor 
rules  only  by  the  spiritual  sword,  which  is  the  word  of  God, 
and  the  discipline  which  he  exercises  is  no  more  than  the 
personal  application  of  Christ's  words,  in  his  name  to  judge 
the  impenitent,  and  absolve  the  penitent ;  and  every  author- 
itative teacher  in  Christ's  name  hath  power  to  make  such 
personal  application  of  the  word,'3  and  is  therefore  clothed 
with  all  ministerial  power.  For  this  power,  in  any  case,  is 
no  more  than  declarative,  and  has  no  force  if  it  be  unjustly 
exercised,  contrary  to  the  mind  of  Christ,  or,  as  it  is  said, 
eminte  clave. 

It  is  altogether  a  vain  figment  of  the  prelatists,  that  the 
office  of  teaching  and  governing,  in  spiritual  matters  are  dis- 
tinct, the  former  belonging  to  presbyters,  and  the  latter  to 
prelates  only.  There  is  no  such  distinction  in  the  nature  of 
the  case  ;  in  the  law  of  Christ ;  in  the  ministerial  commission ; 
or  in  the  apostolical  records.  They  are  part  of  the  same  office, 
and  inseparably  conjoined  in  scripture.  Ruling  is  only  as  a 
means  towards  the  better  accomplishment  of  the  chief  end 
of  the  ministry,  which  is  teaching;  and  he  who  is  qualified 

1)  Potter   on    Ch.    Govt.  pp.  92,  3)   Corbet  on  the  Ch.  p.  37.   Lond. 
101,  102,  103.                                                 1684.  4to.     See  also  p.  39. 

2)  Ibid,  p.  235. 


CHAP.  VI.  ]       WITH    THE    POWER    OF    JURISDICTION.  139 

and  called  to  teach,  is  thereby  called  and  authorized  to  rule.1 
And  that  such  spiritual  authority  was  actually  conferred  upon 
presbyters,  is  made  abundantly  evident  in  the  word  of  God. 
Every  power  which  Christ  has  deputed  to  the  officers  of  the 
church  is  included  under  three  terms,  Tjysofiai,  tiqokjtijui,  noi. 
ftaiw,  signifying  to  take  the  lead,  to  preside,  and  to  fulfil  the 
duties   of   a"  shepherd.     Now  each  one  of  these  terms  is  ap- 
plied to  presbyters  in  their  official  character.    Thus  the  Hebrew 
christians  are  exhorted    by  the  apostle  'to  remember  them 
that  have  the  rule  over  them,'  {ijyovfievwv ;)  and  who  were  they? 
The  apostle  answers  — '  who  had  spoken  unto  you  the  word 
of  God.'     They  were  therefore  preachers.    '  Obey,'  he  repeats, 
1  them  that  have  the  rule  over  you  (rjyovfievotg)  for  they  watch  for 
your  souls  as  they  that  must  give  account.     Here  preaching 
and  ruling,  are  associated  as   the  inseparable  and  correlative 
functions  of  the  same  office  of  presbyter.     '  Let  the  presby- 
ters that  rule  well,'  says  Paul  in  his  charge  to  Timothy,  (ot  xuhog 
TTooearoneg,)  be  counted  worthy  of  double  honor.  (1  Tim.  5  :  17. 
So   also  1    Thes.  5:   12.)2       Thus   also   Paul   charges   the 
Ephesian  presbyters  to  take  heed  to  themselves  and  to  all  the 
flock  of  God  over  which  the  Holy  Ghost  had  made  them 
bishops,  to  feed,  (noifiaiveiv,)  that  is,  govern,  watch  over,  and  rule 
the  church  of   God,'3    (Acts  20:    17.28.)     The  presbyters 
who  are  among  you,  says  the  apostle  Peter,  '  I  exhort,  who 
am  also  a  presbyter,  feed,  noiuairFTe,  the  flock  of  God  which 
is  among  you,  taking  the  oversight  thereof,  BmoxonowTeg,  that 
is,  discharging  the  duties  of  bishops,  not  by  constraint,  but 
willingly   ....    neither  as  being  lords,  (or  prelates,  that  is, 
aspiring  to  the  dignity  of  a  superior  order,)  over  God's  her- 
itage,' (1  Pet.  5 :  2,  3.)'4 

The  apostles  are  further  found,  in  the  most  distinct  and  une- 
quivocal manner,  attributing  to  presbyters  the  right  of  juris- 
diction in  the  church  of  God,  by  applying  to  their  office  every 
term  by  which  it  was  possible  to  express  this  function.  The 
titles  given  by  them  to  presbyters,  are  used  to  express  the 
power  of  civil  magistrates  in  the  Greek  translation  of  the  Old 
Testament,5  and  in  Greek  writers  generally.  The  very  term 
presbyter  was  that  by  which  civil  rulers  and  elders  in  the 
gate  were  commonly  designated.6     The  term  guide  or  leader, 

1)  See  Corbet    on  the   Ch.  p.  44.     See  Gillespie's  Aaron's  Rod,  p.  272. 

2)  See    this    matter    ably   eluci-  4)  See  ibid.  pp.  286,  270. 

dated  by  Dr.  Mason  in  his  Wks.  vol.  5)    Numb  31 :  14;  Judg.  9:  28; 

iii.  p.  108,  and  also  in  Plea  for  Pres-  Kings,  1:15. 

bytery,  p.  186.  6)  Judg.  8  :    14;    Ruth  4  :    2,3; 

3)  So   the    Greek   scholars    say.  2  Sam.  5:3;  1  Chron.  11:3. 


140  •  PRESBYTERS    EXERCISED  [BOOK  I. 

which  is  also  given  to  presbyters,1  was  another  title  of  civil 
rulers.-  The  title  of  president  is  also  applied  to  presbyters,3 
and  was  used  by  Thucydides,  Demosthenes,  Herodotus, 
Plato,  and  others,  for  the  rulers  of  cities,  armies,  and  king- 
doms, and  implies  similar  authority  in  the  church,  which  is 
the  city  of  the  living  God,  and  Christ's  spirilual  kingdom.4 
So  that  if  any  wisdom,  foresight,  or  design,  may  be  justly 
ascribed  to  the  inspired  writers,  in  the  selection  of  their  titles 
of  office — and  who  can  question  this  without  impeaching  the 
wisdom  of  God  ?  —  then  must  we  believe  that  presbyters  are 
clothed  with  the  power  of  ministerial  jurisdiction.5 

§  3.     Proofs  that  presbyters  exercised  the  power  of  jurisdic- 
tion, under  divine  sanction. 

The  same  thing  is  taught  us  by  recorded  facts.  Presbyters 
are  not  merely  enrobed  in  all  the  titled  dignity  of  ministerial 
power,  but  are  represented  as  acting  in  the  capacity  of  rulers  ; 
and  as  those  who  ranked  next  to  the  apostles,  and  to  whom, 
therefore,  their  power,  as  ordinary  ministers,  descends.  Indeed, 
it  was  because  the  aposlles  did  not  wish  to  govern  alone,  that 
they  divided  the  government  of  the  church,  which  hitherto 
they  had  exercised  alone,  with  tried  men  who  formed  a  pre- 
siding council  of  presbyters,  similar  to  what  had  always 
existed  in  the  Jewish  synagogue,0  presbyters  were  thus 
appointed  for  this  very  purpose  of  taking  a  lead  in  gov- 
ernment.7 Thus  when  the  collections  for  the  poor  saints  were 
sent  up  to  Jerusalem,  they  were  handed  in  to  the  presbyters, 
who  presided  in  the  absence  of  the  apostles,8  and  acted  in  their 
name,  and  not.  to  any  superior  officer.0  Thus  also  when 
certain  teachers  from  Jerusalem  had  excited  controversy 
in  the  churches  of  Asia,  and  '  when  Paul  and  Barnabas   had 

1)  Josh.  13:  21;  Deut.  1:  13;  6)  Neander'a  Hist,  of  the  Plant- 
Micah.3:  9;2Chron.5:  1;  Acts,  7  :  ing  of  Christ'y,  vol.  i.p.  II.  See  also 
10,  &c.  &c.  Milman's   Hist,   of    Christ,  vol.   ii.   p. 

2)  Ileb.  13:7.  n,  2-1.  7G.    '  In  his  absence  the  government 

3)  Rom.  12:  8;  1  Thes.  0:  12;  and  even  instruction  of  the  church. 
1  Tim.  5:  17.  devolved  upon  the  senate  of  elders.1 

4)  See  Stephanus's  Thes.  in  ' The  presbyters  were  in  their  origin, 
verbo.  the  ruling  powers  of  the  youm;  com- 

5)  Saravia  distinctly  admits,  that  munities.  Ibid,  pp,  72  and  74,  also 
the  very  term  presbyter  'denotes  in  Goode's  Div.  Rule  of  faith,  vol.  ii. 
the  New  Testament,  the  rulers  of  the  p.  0.1. 

church   of    Christ,'   otherwise   called  7)    Ibid,  p.  40. 

bishops,  and   by  many  other  names,  8J    See  £ord    Barrington,'  in  Wks. 

all  implying  rule.     See  on  the  Priest-  vol.  ii.  pp.  16S,  17.">. 

hood,  pp.  112,  113.  9)  Acts,  11:  30. 


CHAP.  VI.]  THE    POWER    OF    JURISDICTION.  141 

no  small  dissension  and  disputation  with  ihem,  they  de- 
termined, that  Paul  and  Barnabas,  and  certain  other  of 
them,  should  go  up  to  Jerusalem,  to  the  apostles  and  presby- 
ters, about  this  question.'1  To  presbyters,  as  next  to  the 
apostles  in  wisdom  and  aulhority,  was  this  important  ques- 
tion submitted.  Thus  were  presbyters  associated  in  coun- 
cil with  the  apostles,  and  allowed  with  them  ministerially  to 
legislate  for  the  whole  church.2  The  decree  of  this  first 
synod,  was  given  in  the  name  of  '  the  apostles,  presbyters, 
and  brethren,'  or  the  other  delegated  members,  who  sat  as 
representatives  of  the  churches.3  Neither  is  there  here  any 
reference  to  any  other  possible  officers,  as  successors  to  ihe 
aposiles,  than  presbyters;  for  when  this  decree  was  to  be  pro- 
claimed to  the  churches,  Barnabas  and  Saul,  together  with 
Judas  and  Silas,  who  were  prophets,  and  therefore  presby- 
ters, were  authorized  to  make  it  known.4 

We  find  presbyters  also  exercising  the  highest  power  of 
jurisdiction,  that  is,  excommunication.  For  in  writing  to  the 
Corinthian  church,  the  apostle  requires  the  presbyters  of  that 
church  to  excommunicate  ihe  incestuous  member.  '  In  the 
name  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,'  says  he,  'when  ye,  (that  is, 
the  Tilemroir,  the  many,5)  arc  gathered  togelher,  and  (in)  my 
spirit,  (that  is,  with  ihe  power  of  ihe  keys  communicated  to 
you,  as  presbyters,  by  me,  and  thus)  with  the  power  of  our 
Lord  Jesus  Christ,  to  deliver  such  an  one  unto  Satan.'0 
That  ihere  were  many  separate  congregations  at  Corinth, 
may  be  made  to  appear  highly  probable  from  the  multitude 
of  members  in  the  church:7  from  the  number  of  iis  pas- 
tors;8 from  the  churches  ihere  being  spoken  of  in  the  plural 
number;9  and  from  olher  circumstances.10  That  ihese 
several  congregations  were  under  one  united  presbylerial 
government,  would  also  appear,  for  they  are  spoken  of  as 
one  church.11  Now  the  apostle  evidently  censures  these 
presbyters  for  having  neglected  their  duty,  and  the  necessary 
exercise  of  that  power  with  which  ihey  were  intrusted,  by  his 
gift,  and  the  power  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ.1-     '  Do  not  ye,' 

1)  Acts  15:  2.  C)  1  Cor.  5. 

2)  Acts  15:  4,  G,  22,  23.  7)   Acts,  IS:  7,  8,  0,  10. 

3)  As  no  one  place  could  have  8)  1  Cor.  14:  20. 
held  all    the  believers   in  Jerusalem,  0)  1  Cor.  13:34. 

these  brethren  must  have  been  repre-  10)  See  Eccl.    Catechism,  by  the 

sentatives.  author. 

4)  Acts  15:  25,  28,  32,  and  10:  4.  11)  1    Cor.  1:   1.      See  Jus.   Div. 
and  Gillespie's  Aaron's  Rod  &c.  p.  304^  Regimiuis  Eccl. 

5)  See  2  Cor.  2:  0.  12)  2  Cor.  2:  2,  12. 


142  PRESBYTERS    EXERCISED  [BOOK    I. 

he  asks  these  presbyters,  'judge  them  that  are  within  V1  that 
is,  who  are  members  of  the  church ;  and  why  have  you  not, 
therefore,  exercised  this  juridical  authority  in  the  present  case  ? 
And  when  they  had  proceeded  to  exercise  their  power,  the 
apostle  speaks  of  their  sentence  as  inflicted  '  by  the  many ' 
members  of  this  consistorial  court.  It  was  not  inflicted  by 
all,  and  therefore,  not  by  the  church  generally.  It  was 
inflicted  by  many,  and,  therefore,  not  by  any  single  prelate. 
It  was  inflicted  by  Paul's  spirit,  or  the  authority  ministerially 
conveyed  by  him  in  ordination,  and  therefore  by  the  presby- 
ters, since  Paul  himself  was  a  presbyter.  It  was  inflicted 
with  the  power  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  and  in  virtue, 
therefore,  of  that  authority,  which  he  has  delegated  in  perpe- 
tuity to  the  ministers  of  his  church.  And  as  the  apostle  did 
not  feel  warranted  in  pronouncing  this  sentence  himself, 
although  shamefully  neglected  by  the  church  —  as  prelates 
would  certainly  have  done  —  but  requires  the  presbytery  to 
execute  the  sentence,  we  are  given  to  understand,  that  it  is 
the  prerogative  of  the  presbyters  of  any  given  church,  and  of 
them  alone,  to  excommunicate  members;  and  that  to  them 
alone  has  the  power  of  jurisdiction  been  transmitted  in  the 
church.'-'  This  interpretation  of  this  passage  is  fully  sustain- 
ed by  Mr.  Thorndike,  an  eminent  authority  among  prelatists. 
'  It  must  be  acknowledged,'  he  says,  'that  the  apostle  writeth 
to  them  to  see  his  sentence  published,  ratified,  and  executed, 
which  the  presbyters  there  had  either  neglected  to  do,  as  was 
touched  afore,  or  perhaps,  were  not  able  to  bring  the  people 
under  llie  discipline  of  Christ's  kingdom;  which  must  needs 
oblige  the  apostle  to  interpose?  The  apostle  evidently  shows 
that  while  he  had  already  fully  made  up  his  own  judgment 
in  the  case,  (1  Cor.  v:  18,)  he  did  not  consider  it  within  his 
jurisdiction,  but  as  necessarily  appertaining  to  the  govern- 
ment of  the  presbyters;  'for  what  have  I  to  do,'  says  he,  'to 
judge  those  that  are  without'  the  compass  of  my  sphere;  'do 
not  ye  judge  those  that  are  within?'  (v:  12.)  Thus  also 
did  tie  deliver  himself  in  his  epistle  to  the  Galatians,  (v :  12,) 
Baying:  v  I  would  they  were  cut  oft"  that  trouble  you  ;'  where, 
although  the  apostle  desired  the  excommunication  of  certain 
persons,  he  nevertheless  felt,  that  by  his  own  and  sole  author- 

1)  1  Cor.  5:13.  —  198.     Rutherford's  Plea  for  Paul's 

2)  See  tlu>  important  case  fully  1'rosli.  p.  174.  Henderson's  Rev.  and 
discussed  in  Gillespie's  Aaron's  Rod  Consid.  322,  356,  357.  Rutherford's 
Blossoming,  pp.  278,  123.  Brown's  Due  Right  of  Presb  SO,  &C.  Thorn- 
\  nnl.  of  Presb.  Ch.  Govt.  p.  85,  &c.  dike's  Prim.  Govt,  of  the  Ch.  pp.  140, 
Div.  Right  of  Ch.  Govt.  pp.  104,  19G,  141.  Estius  in  Pool's  Synopsis  in  loco. 


CHAP.  VI.]  THE    POWER    OF    JURISDICTION.  143 

ity,  he  could  not  accomplish  his  desire,  seeing  that  the  Gala- 
tians  were  fully  organized  under  their  proper  authorities. 

In  like  manner  does  he  call  upon  the  members  of  the  church 
at  Thessalonica,  '  to   know  them  that   are  over  them  in  the 
Lord,  and  admonish  them,'  that  is,  the  presbyters,  who  had 
been  regularly  placed  over    them,   according  to  the   divine 
commission  ;  and  '  to  be  at  peace  among  themselves.'2    Even 
when  the  apostle  found  it  necessary,  in  order  to  complete  the 
permanent  organization  of  the    churches,  to    send   to  them 
Timothy  and   Thus,  he  calls    their   attention  to   this  point, 
saying,  'rebuke  not  a  presbyter,  but  entreat  him  as  a  father.'3 
That  "is,  the  established  presbyters  of  these  churches  were  to 
be  regarded  by  Timothy  and  Titus  as  their  fathers,  who  were 
to  be  treated  by  them   with   all  that  deference  and  regard 
which  they  had  ever  received  at  the  hands  of  the  apostles. 
They  were  not,  therefore,  to  do  any  thing  in  contrariety  to 
their  views,  by   the  force  of  authority ;  but  by  entreaty  and 
persuasion  they  were  to  endeavor  to  bring  them  to  correct 
opinions.4     In  the  same  spirit  does  he  caution   Timothy  on 
the   subject   of  ordination;     'lay  hands,'   says  the  apostle, 
'  suddenly   on  no   man,  neither  be  partaker  of  other  men's 
sins.'5     Timothy  is  here  reminded  of  the  great  importance 
of  ordination  as  the  gate  of  entrance  into  the  ministry.     He 
was,  therefore,  to  use  every  effort  to  guard  it  well  against 
all  improper  approaches.     But  still  he  was  not  to  assume  any 
authoritative  dictation  over  the  other  presbyters,  or  to  attempt 
to  hinder  them  in  the  exercise  of  their  rightful  powers.     But 
this  much  he  was  to  do.     Should  they  insist  on  ordaining  any 
individual  rashly  or  wrongly,  he  was  not  to  unite  in  the  work, 
and  thus  partake  in  their  sins,  but  by  withholding  his  hands 
he  was  to  bear  a  testimony  against  their  evil  course.     '  These 
things,  therefore,'   says  the  apostle,  '  I  write  unto  thee  that 
thou  mightest  know  how  thou  oughtest  to  behave  thyself  in 
the  house  of  God,  which  is  the  church  of  the  living  God,  the 
pillar  and  ground  of  the  truth,'  and  therefore  not  to  be  lorded 
over  by  any  prelatical  despots,  who  '  say  they  are  apostles  and 
are  not,'  and  much  less  by  one  so  young  as  Timothy  was. 

The  same  conclusion  must  be  drawn  from  1  Cor.  14 :  29, 
where  it  is  said,  '  the  spirits  of  the  prophets,  (who  were  pres- 
byters,) are  subject  to  the  (rest  of  the)  prophets.'6     It  is  hence 

1)  Barrow  on  Pope's  Supr.  Supp.  4)  See  Jameson's  Sum  of  the  Ep. 
5,  Lect.  ii.  p.  187,  4to.  ed.     See  Pow-     Contr.  p.  101. 

ell,  p.  299,  ed.  second.  5)  1  Tim.  5  :  22.  , 

2)  1  Thess.  5: 12, 13.  6)  Lord  Barrington's  Wks.  vol.  l. 

3)  1  Tim.  5:1.  p.  84. 


144  PRESBYTERS    EXERCISED  [BOOK  I. 

to  be  inferred,  lhat  there  were  several  presbyters  in  all  ihe 
primitive  churches,  who  were  united  together  for  the  common 
government  of  their  churches,  and  thai  every  individual  among 
them  was  subjeel  to  the  advice,  instructions,  commands,  and 
censures  of  the  body-1  To  this  body  the  government  of  ihe 
church  was  committed  by  ihe  apostles,  under  their  general 
superintendence  and  advice  as  inspired  men.  This  superin- 
tendence ihey  exercised  in  their  extraordinary  character,  and 
with  such  extraordinary  gifts,  ils  possibility  ceased.  Having 
perfected  Ihe  body  of  Christ,  and  prepared  it  for  the  ordinary 
ministry,  the  office  of  the  apostles  terminated.3  Apostles 
were  no  longer  given.  Evangelists  were  no  longer  sent  out 
with  plenipotentiary  powers.  And  prophets,  so  far  as  ihey 
were  gifted  with  foreknowledge,  forever  ceased.  Thus  ihe 
government  and  direction  of  the  church  devolved  upon  the 
'  paslors  and  teachers,'  who  are.  it  is  allowed,  the  same  order 
as  presbyters.  These  ministers  were  every  where  ordained 
by  these  extraordinary  oificcrs,  and  empowered  to  succeed 
them,  in  every  ecclesiastical  funclion.  Nay,  what  is  more 
conclusive  still,  they  exercised  these  functions  during  the  very 
life-time  of  the  apostles  ;  by  iheir  injunction  ;  and  under  their 
sanction;  and  were  instructed  to  commit  the  same  powers  to 
faithful  men,  who  should  be  able  to  teach  others  also.3  And 
thus  do  we  find  ihe  apostles,  Peter  and  Paul,  in  iheir  last 
farewell  visits  and  solemn  injunctions,  given  to  the  churches 
in  ihe  knowledge  of  their  approaching  death,  explicitly  dele- 
gating these  powers,  and  the  whole  oversight  and  episcopal 
superintendence  of  the  churches,  to  presbyters,  without  any 
manner  of  allusion  to  the  possible  existence  of  such  an  order 
as  prelates.'4  And  in  so  doing,  ihey  doubtless  had  in  re- 
membrance the  directions  given  by  our  Saviour  for  the  future 
government  of  his  church,5  and  in  which,  by  a  reference  to 
the  existing  forms  of  ihe  synagogue,  where  all  cases  of  disci- 
pline were  determined  by  ihe  common  council  of  presbyters, 
lie  instructed  his  disciples,  that  in  ihe  church  also,  ihe  power 
of  jurisdiction,  according  to  his  laws,  should  lie  vested  in  ihe 
hands  of  a  similar  presbytery.1' 

1)  This   fad   is    nssrrted  by   Dr.     1    Pet    5:   1-4;    2    Tet.  1,   13,    14;  1 
Vaughan,  in  liis  recenl  work,  ■  Con-    Thess.  5:12,  13, 
gregationalism,'  (see  pp.  205,  200.)  as  I  'it.  18: 15. 

applying    universally  to  the    pnmi-           0)  See    Gillespie's   Aaron's  Rod, 

tive  rhuvches,  pp.  400-403.  where   may  he  seen  a 

2)  See  above.  host  of  authorities  tor  this  interpreia- 
:;i  See  above.  lion.  Also,  Pagei's  Power  of  Classes 
4)  See  Acts,  20:25,  27,28,  29;    and  Synods,  and  Neander's  Hist,  of  the 

Chr.  Rel.  vol.  i.  p.  ISC. 


CHAP.  VI.]  THE    POWER    OF    JURISDICTION.  145 


§  4.     Objections  answered. 

From  this  examination  into  the  condition  of  the  church 
during  the  apostolic  age,  it  appears  beyond  a  doubt  certain, 
that  presbyters  were  clothed  with  the  powers  of  jurisdiction. 
But  this  fact  can  be  further  substantiated  by  testimony  from 
a  later  period.  Before,  however,  offering  this,  it  is  necessary 
to  notice  some  objections,  by  which  it  is  thought  our  conclu- 
sion is  destroyed.  One  is,  that  the  apostles  exercised  disci- 
pline in  churches  over  which  presbyters  were  established, 
and,  therefore,  were  a  superior  order,  to  be  perpetuated  in  the 
church.  But  to  this  it  may  be  replied,  that  the  only  cases 
wherein  discipline  was  thus  exercised,  relate  but  to  one  single 
apostle,  and  are  not,  therefore,  characteristic  of  the  practice  of 
all  the  rest.1  Again,  the  cases  referred  to,  in  connection  with 
this  single  apostle,  occurred  in  only  two  out  of  some  hun- 
dreds of  the  churches,  of  which  mention  is  made  in  the  New 
Testament ;  and  must,  therefore,  be  regarded  as  extraordinary 
and  not  as  implying  the  general  rule.  The  apostle  interfered, 
in  these  cases,  evidently  as  an  apostle,  and  not  as  a  prelate. 
As  a  prelate  he  could  not,  since,  as  it  regards  the  case  of 
the  church  at  Corinth,  at  the  very  time  alluded  to,  Timothy 
must  have  been  present,  and  yet  lie,  as  is  affirmed,  was  him- 
self a  prelate,  (1  Cor.  4 :  17.)  Besides,  the  case  here  referred 
to  was  one  requiring,  in  the  judgment  of  the  apostle,  the 
exercise  of  that  supernatural  power,  which  he,  by  his  extraor- 
dinary office,  possessed,  (1  Cor.  5:5.)  The  apostle  being, 
also,  the  founder  of  the  Corinthian  church,  was  of  course 
called  upon  to  interfere.  And  yet,  in  doing  so,  he  implies 
that  the  exercise  of  discipline  to  the  extent  of  excommunica- 
tion, was  customary  in  this  very  church,  and  should,  on  this 
occasion,  have  been  enforced  at  Corinth,  even  as  it  was  in  the 
other  churches,  by  the  agency  of  their  own  presbyters,2  without 
the  intervention  of  apostolic  authority,  (2  Thess.  3 :  14.) 

This  case,  then,  of  the  church  at  Corinth,  is  plainly  an 
unusual  one,  and  considering  the  incipient  organization  of 
the  church,  the  interposition  of  apostolic  authority  was  mani- 
festly necessary  and  proper,  notwithstanding  that  the  minis- 
ters there  possessed  the  right  of  discipline,  since  they  were 
wanting  in  the  present  ability  or  courage  necessary  to  carry 
it  into  execution.     But  even  in  this  case,  as  we  have  seen,  the 

1)  Barnes'  Episc.  Ex'd.  p.  116.  2)  See  Acts,  20:17,  2S ;  1  Pet.  5: 

2,3;  Heb.  13:7;  1  Thess.  5  :  12. 

19 


146  PRESBYTERS    EXERCISED  [BOOK  I. 

aposlle  did  not  himself  exercise  the  discipline  or  execute  ihe 
sentence,  but  merely  denounced  the  crime,  pronounced  the 
penalty  it  deserved,  and  should  receive,  and  then  required 
the  church  to  see  it  carried  into  effect.  '  Purge  ye  out  the  old 
leaven,'  'do  not  ye  judge  them  that  are  within,  therefore, 
put  away  from  among  yourselves  that  wicked  person.'  It  is 
here,  as  Whitby  allows,  ihe  apostle  alludes  to  the  sentence  of 
excommunication,  and  here,  even  while  bishop  Timothy  was 
present,  he  refers  the  whole  case  to  the  church,  acting  by  its 
own  ecclesiastical  authority.  And  thus  he  afterwards  speaks 
of  it,  when  consummated  as  'the  punishment  inflicted  by 
many,'  (2  Cor.  2:6.)  not  before  (^?o)  but  by  (vno.)  many,  and, 
therefore,  not  by  Timothy  alone,  or  by  the  aposlle  alone,  but 
by  all  the  ministers  referred  to  in  1  Cor.  12  :  28,  29,  and  in  the 
presence  of  the  people.  And  whereas  Paul  delivers  the 
criminal  over  to  Satan,  this  was  done  by  virtue  of  his  miracu- 
lous power  to  inflict  corporal  punishment,  and  was  not  the 
ecclesiastical  censure  inflicted  by  the  church.  The  apostle 
thus  enforced  the  sentence  authoritatively  inflicted  by  the 
teachers,  with  the  consent  of  the  people ;  but  when  he  after- 
wards heard  of  the  penitence  of  the  offender,  he  first  urges 
ihe  church  to  forgive  and  restore  him,  and  then  intimates 
that  he  also  would  withdraw  his  inflicted  penalty.  In  this 
interpretation  Whitby  concurs,  and  the  ancients  generally, 
including  Theodoret,  Chrysostom,  and  Theophylact.1 

The  only  other  case  in  which  this  interposition  of  apostolic 
authority  is  alleged,  is  that  of  Hymeneus  and  Alexander, 
whom  the  aposlle  delivered  unto  Satan,  (1  Tim.  1  :  20.)  But 
this  also  was  evidently  not  an  ordinary,  but  an  extraordinary 
case,  implying  miraculous  agency.  And,  if  it  occurred  at 
Ephesus  while  Timothy  was  there,  and  is  here  introduced  in 
a  charge  sent  to  Timothy,  if  it  proves  anything  in  the  matter 
at  all,  it  is  that  the  exercise  of  discipline  was  exclusively  an 
apostolic  prerogative,  and  that  prelates  had  as  little  interest  in 
it  as  presbyters,  since  Timothy,  the  very  prince  of  prelales, 
was  here  restrained  from  its  exercise.2  But  this  case,  like  the 
preceding,  is  manifestly  to  be  considered  as  an  exercise  of 
the  miraculous  and  extraordinary  authority  of  the  apostle, 
which  could  not  possibly  be  delegated  to  any  class  of  men. 

1)    See    Boyee'a     Anct.     Episc.  5;  by  Bucer,  do  Re<rn.  Christ.  1.  i.  c. 

p.  212.     Sec  this  interpretation  vindi-  9;  and  so  ;\1«>  by  Polanus,  Dr.  Field, 

cated  by  Cartwright,  Kefut.  Rhetn.  1  Paraeus,   Zwinghus,    &c.      See    also 

Cor.  5:4;  by  Parker,  Pol.  Eccl.  1    iii.  Sinn's  Royal  Prerogative,  Amsterdam, 

c.   4,   p.    17,   fcc.j    by   WUlet,  Contr.  1041,p.  10. 

Cent,  i.;  by   Fulke,  Answ.  to   Rhem.  2)  See  this  point  fully  discussed 

1  Cor.  5,  4 ;  by  Zanchius  in  prcecep.  in  Barnes's  Episc.  Examined,  p.  126. 
4,  c.  10,  p.  6S8  ;  by  Pet.  Martyr,  1  Cor. 


CHAP.  VI.]  THE    POWER    OF    JURISDICTION.  147 

It  is  not  true,  therefore,  that  the  apostles  appropriated  the 
power  of  excommunication  to  themselves.  For  they  planted 
many  churches,  which  they  never  again  visited,  in  which  1  his 
power  must  have  been  exercised  by  the  presbyters  ordained 
in  every  church;  nor  can  one  single  instance  be  produced, 
where  the  aposlles  did  excommunicate  any  person,  in  any 
church  thus  settled  and  supplied  with  pastors.  It  is  still  more 
baseless  to  assert,  that  ihe  apostles  delegated  this  power  to  an 
order  of  diocesan  prelates,  since  no  such  prelates  can  be 
pointed  out  for  the  first  two  centuries,  in  any  christian  church, 
and  since  even  afler  the  distinctions  of  prelacy  had  arisen, 
this  power  was  still  exercised  by  presbyters.1 

That  the  cases  to  which  we  have  alluded  were  extraordi- 
nary, and  were  manifestations  of  the  supreme  apostolic  power, 
is  still  lurther  evinced  by  the  general  course  pursued  by  these 
same  apostles.  They  were  certainly  employed,  during  a 
great  portion  of  their  time,  in  discharging  the  ordinary  duties 
of  the  ministry.  In  every  possible  way  they  identified  them- 
selves with  presbyters.  They  frequently  applied  to  them- 
selves this  name,  and  spoke  of  presbyters  as  their  fellow 
ministers  and  co-workers.2  Between  the  false  Judaizing 
teachers,  who  utterly  denied  his  apostleship,  and  his 
claims,  and  himself;  the  apostle.  Paul  calls  the  Gentile 
converts,  to  be  judges  of  the  validity  of  his  ministerial 
authority.3  The  apostles  certainly  united  with  presbyters 
in  the  synod  of  Jerusalem,  as  fellow  members,  and  so 
conducted  themselves  throughout  that  whole  meeting  as  to 
make  it  manifest  that  they  acted  not  as  apostles,  with  a 
transcendent  and  infallible  authority,  but  as  presbyters,  and 
as  a  pattern  to  all  future  assemblies.4  From  the  history  of 
this  synod,  it  is  most  clear,  that  Paul  and  Barnabas  had  not 
undertaken  to  decide  the  matter  in  dispute  in  the  church  at 
Antioch,  by  their  own  authority,  but  had,  on  the  contrary, 
argued  and  debated  the  matter  with  ihem,  and  conducted 
themselves  as  fellow  presbyters  with  the  prophets  and  teach- 
ers there.  They  were  also  sent  by  that,  church  to  Jerusalem 
as  ordinary  officers,  and  received  from  it  instructions  and 
authority,  as  did  the  other  presbyters  sent  with  them.  They 
were  thus  delegated  as  ordinary  presbyters,  to  unite  in  a 
common  council  with    the  other  aposlles,   presbyters,   and 

^  1)  See  Boyse's  Anct.  Episc.  pp.  3)  Ep.  to   Galatians.     See   Tay- 

215,  216,  where  proofs  are  given    See  lor's  Process  of  Hist.  Proof,  p.  157. 
also  Neander's  Hist,  of  the  First  Plan  4)  See  this  point  fully  considered 

of  Christ'y,  vol  i.  p.  170.  in   Bastwick's  Utter  Routing,  &c.  p. 

2)  See  chap.  iv.  426,  &c. 


148  rRESBYTERS    EXERCISED  [BOOK  I. 

brethren.  Throughout  the  whole  discussion  —  for  the  whole 
matter  was  debated  —  the  presbyters  acted  as  authoritatively 
as  the  apostles,  (Acts,  15:6,22,  23.)  And  the  final  decree 
was  given  in  the  name  of  the  presbyters,  as  much  as  of  the 
apostles,  who,  indeed,  in  so  many  words,  declare,  lwe  have 
written  and  concluded,'  (Acts,  21:1,)  thus  completely  identi- 
fying themselves  with  the  presbyters.  From  all  which  it  is 
evident,  that  the  apostles,  except  when  employed  by  Christ 
as  infallible  and  inspired  founders  of  the  church,  acted  as 
ordinary  officers.  They  always  professed  complete  subjec- 
tion to  the  word  of  God  as  revealed  to  them  by  inspiration, 
or  in  the  Old  Testament,  so  that  when  Peter  swerved  from 
that  rule,  Paul  resisted  him  to  the  face.  Their  very  move- 
ments, as  inspired  apostles,  were  directed  by  the  Holy  Spirit.1 
They  were  accountable  to  the  presbytery  at  Jerusalem,  by 
which  even  Peter  was  questioned,2  and  required  to  give  sat- 
isfaction. To  this  presbytery  the  other  apostles  were  also 
subject,  and  gave  an  account  of  their  labors,  and  of  the  doc- 
trines preached  by  them  while  on  their  missionary  tours. 
Paul,  on  different  occasions,  thus  reported  himself,  and  made 
known  his  doctrinal  sentiments.3  He  received  orders  from 
the  presbytery  of  Jerusalem,4  and  was  ruled  by  them.  The 
apostles  disclaimed  all  lordship  over  the  other  churches  also. 
They  paid  them  all  respect  and  deference  in  the  Lord.  They 
became  all  things  to  them.  They  were  willing  to  be  em- 
ployed, at  any  time,  as  their  agents  in  the  accomplishment  of 
their  will.  Thus  Peter  and  John  were  sent  to  Samaria;5 
Paul  and  Barnabas  to  Jerusalem,  and  from  thence  to  Antioch, 
Syria,  and  Galatia.  They  thus  preached,  not  themselves, 
but  Jesus  Christ  the  Lord,  and  regarded  themselves  as  the 
servants  of  the  church  for  Jesus'  sake.6  It  is  also  suscepti- 
ble of  the  clearest  proof,  that  under  the  very  eye  of  the  apos- 
tles, the  several  congregations  in  Jerusalem  were  united 
together  under  the  government  of  a  presbytery.  This  pattern 
was  followed  at  Ephesus,  at  Corinth,  at  Rome,  and,  we  may 
believe,  every  where  else.7  To  presbyteries  the  apostles  every 
where  committed  the  whole  oversighl  and  management  of 
the  churches.  So  that,  on  the  whole,  we  may  be  well 
assured,  that  the  power  of  jurisdiction  was  designed  to  reside 
ordinarily  and  permanently  in  the  order  of  presbyters,  and 

1)  Acts,  ir,.  8)  2   Cor.  4:5;  1  Cor.  3:21,  23; 

2)  Acts,  11.  Gal.  1  :7,  8;  2  Cor.  10th,  and  11th. 

3)  See  Lord  Barrington's  Essay            7)  See  the   author's  Eccl.  Cate- 
on  the  Apostles.  chism,   ch.    iv.   §  4,    &c,    and    Bast- 

4)  Acts,  21.  wick,  ibid,  this  is  the  suhject  of  nearly 

5)  Acts,  8.  his  whole  volume. 


CHAP.  VI.]  THE    POWER    OF    JURISDICTION.  149 

that  these  are  the  true  successors  to  the  apostles,  though  not 
apostles  in  the  special  meaning  of  that  term. 

§  5.  The  apostles  ivere  not  prelates  of  the  churches  founded 
by  them,  but  these  churches  were  presided  over  by  one  of 
their  own  presbyters,  chosen  by  themselves,  as  appears  from 
numerous  passages. 

But  we  must  notice  one  other  objection  to  our  argument, 
the  assertion,  namely,  that  the  apostles  acted  during  their  lives 
as  the  prelates  of  the  several  churches,  and  that  all  the  power 
exercised  by  presbyters  was  in  subordination  to  them.  This 
objection  cannot  be  sustained.  It  is  contrary  to  the  very 
nature  and  design  of  the  apostolic  office,  that  the  apostles 
should  act  as  fixed  officers  or  prelates  over  any  church ;  the 
general  superintendency  which  was  a  part  of  their  extraor- 
dinary functions,  being  inconsistent  with  every  essential  char- 
acteristic of  prelates,  who  are  fixed  officers,  and  of  whom  there 
can  be  only  one  in  any  given  church,  according  to  the  ancient 
canons.1  The  apostles,  therefore,  could  not  possibly  act  as 
prelates  of  all  the  churches  they  founded  ;  whilst  in  their 
extraordinary  and  general  oversight  and  control,  they  never 
can  have  any  successors.2  Besides,  if  the  apostles,  during 
their  lives,  continued  to  exercise  these  prelatic  functions,  it 
follows,  of  necessity,  that  there  could  be  no  such  thing  as 
prelates  appointed  until  their  death,  and  none  afterwards, 
since  there  were  none  left  to  appoint  them.  Timothy,  and 
Titus,  and  the  whole  host  of  aspirants  after  official  preemi- 
nence, are  thus  at  once  denuded  of  their  honors,  whilst  the 
angels  of  the  churches  dwindle  into  stars  of  the  second 
magnitude,  and  shine  forth  as  the  simple  presbyters  of  the 
churches. 

But  what  is  worst  of  all,  we  have  found  that  one  of  the 
very  last  acts  of  these  apostles  was  to  commit  into  the  hands 
of  presbyters  the  office  of  the  episcopate  and  the  entire  gov- 
ernment of  the  churches.  It  admits  of  no  question  that  pres- 
byters are  said  to  exercise  the  episcopate.3  This  was  the  course 
pursued  by  the  apostle  Paul,  by  Peter,  and  also  by  the  apostle 
John,  as  appears  from  the  Book  of  Revelation  ;  for,  as  he  was 
then  living,  the  epistles  to  the  seven  churches  must  have  been 
addressed  to  their  presbyters,  he  being  still  their  only  prelate. 

1)  See  these  views   extended  in  3)  2  Pet.  5:  1,  2  ;   Nolan's  Cath. 
Lect.  on  the  Apost.  Succ.  Lect.  x.            Char,  of  Christ,  p.  220  ;  Potter  on  Ch. 

2)  See  ibid.  Govt.  p.  115  ;  Eng.  ed.  Stilling.  Iren. 

p.  2S6  ;  King's  Prim.  Ch.  p.  7«. 


150  PRESBYTERS     PRESIDED    OVER  [BOOK   I. 

And  thus  does  it  appear,  to  the  utter  confusion  and  dismay 
of  all  hierarchies,  that  the  apostles  devolved  the  whole  suc- 
cession of  their  ordinary  power  and  jurisdiction  upon  presby- 
ters. Accordingly  we  find  that  the  churches,  acting  upon  1  lie 
full  belief  that  no  other  order  of  ministers  were  to  be  ever  es- 
tablished, than  that  instituted  by  the  apostles,  namely,  presby- 
ters, proceeded  to  organize  themselves  into  presbyteries,  and 
to  elect  their  own  presidents  for  the  better  management  of 
business,  and  the  more  efficient  completion  of  all  their  plans. 

Such  is  the  view  given  of  the  apostolic  churches  by  arch- 
bishop Potter,  who  allows  that  there  was  a  college  of  presby- 
ters ordained  over  the  church  of  Jerusalem,  who  were  plainly 
concerned  in  the  care  of  the  church.1  '  Our  fourth  proposi- 
tion,' says  Grotius,  '  is  this,  that  this  episcopacy  is  approved 
by  divine  law,  or,  as  Bucer  says,  it  seemed  good  to  the  Holy 
Ghost  that  one  among'  the  presbyters  should  be  charged  with 
a  peculiar  care.' 2 

In  the  absence  of  the  apostles,  the  presbyters,  as  we  have 
seen,  were  accustomed  to  preside  in  the  church  at  Jerusa- 
lem.3 The  presbyters  of  the  church  of  Antioch  must  also 
have  had  one  of  their  number  to  act  as  president  when  they 
were  assembled  together  for  the  ordination  of  Barnabas  and 
Saul.4  Such  appears  to  have  been  the  general  practice  of 
the  churches,  in  all  of  which,  according  to  the  necessity  of  the 
case,  there  were  a  plurality  of  presbyters,  one  of  their  number 
being  elected  to  preside  in  their  councils  ;  a  custom  which  is 
still  maintained  in  all  its  original  simplicity  by  presbyterians. 

A  plurality  of  bishops,  presbyters,  or  governors,  says  Blon- 
del,  existed  at  one  and  the  same  time,  in  one  and  the  same 
church.  He  further  supposes  that  these  pastors,  or  bishops, 
were  all  indued  with  equal  power  and  honor;  that  the  eldest 
minister,  by  virtue  of  his  seniority,  was  constantly  the  moder- 
ator among  his  colleague  presbyters  ;  that  this  moderator  was 
subject  to  the  power  of  the  presbytery,  and  obeyed  its  com- 
mands, with  no  less  submission  than  did  the  meanest  of  their 
number;  and  that  while  he  had  chief  power  in  the  college,  he 
had  properly  no  power  over  it  or  independently  of  it.s 

That  officers  of  this  kind  might  be  expected  in  the  apostolic 

1)  On  Ch.  Govt.c.  3,  p.  107,  Eng.  5)  Apol.  Pnefat  pp.  G,  7,  18,  35. 
edition.  See  Jameson's  Cyp.  Isot.  pp.  231,  232, 

2)  Sacra,  c.  It.  vol.  ii.  pp.  77,78.     See  also   Goode's 

3)  See  Lord  Barrington's  Wks.  Divine  Rule  of  Faith,  ch.  viii.  This 
vol.  ii.  pp.  105,  175.  Also  Benson  on  writer  denies  that  any  thing  more  can 
the  Relig.  Worship  of  the  Christians,  be  proved  from  scripture  or  from  prim- 
c.  3,  $  2,  p.  83.  itive  antiquity. 

4)  Acts,  13:  l,&c.    See  ch.  vii. 


CHAP.  VI.]  THE    APOSTOLIC    CHURCHES.  151 

churches  would  appear  from  the  fact  that  such  chairmen,  pres- 
idents, or  moderators,  are  necessary  in  all  assemblies,  where 
several  have  a  right  to  speak,  and  are  therefore  constancy  ap- 
pointed. There  was,  we  know,  such  an  order  of  presidents 
among  the  presbyters  who  managed,  in  common,  the  eccles- 
iastical affairs  of  the  synagogue.1  These  are  several  times 
introduced  to  our  notice  in  the  sacred  volume,  as  presiding  in 
the  Jewish  synagogues,  and  as  giving  liberty  to  preach.2  And 
it  would  appear  to  be  very  probable,  that  Peter  was  president, 
chairman,  or  speaker  in  the  college  of  the  apostles,3  and  also 
in  the  church  of  Jerusalem,  in  which  the  twelve  apostles  act- 
ed conjointly,  and  among  whom,  until  their  dispersion,  Peter 
'probably  acted  as  moderator.4 

Such  officers,  therefore,  would  naturally  suggest  themselves 
to  the  apostolic  churches,  especially  as  our  Saviour  had  directed 
them  to  the  synagogue  for  their  exemplar.5  And  when  we  con- 
sider the  variety  of  gifts  then  enjoyed  by  the  church,  and  the 
number  who  would  have  a  consequent  right  to  speak,  and 
how  much  of  the  edification  of  the  church  depended  on  ihe 
order  with  which  such  persons  spoke,  judged,  prophesied, 
prayed,  sung,  and  exercised  their  gifts  generally,  we  will  under- 
stand how  necessary  and  useful  this  office  then  was  in  all 
their  meetings.6  Such  an  officer  was  no  less  important  for 
the  hearing  and  deciding  of  all  ihe  controversies  about  world- 
ly matters  which  arose  among  the  brethren ;  to  give  advice  in 
all  difficult  cases  ;  7  to  watch  over  the  general  order;  to  guard 
against  abuses;  to  admonish  the  faulty;  and  to  guide  the 
public  deliberations.8  In  the  beginning,  therefore,  one  of  the 
bishops  or  presbyters  presided,  under  the  title  of  proestos,  sen- 
ior probatus,  &c,  that  is,  the  president  or  approved  elder.  In 
the  second  century  they  began  to  give  this  officer  exclusively 
the  title  of  bishop,  calling  the  other  bi  shops  presbyters  or 

1)  See  this  position  fully  sustain-  6)  Lord  Barrington's  Wks,  vol.  i. 
ed  by  Vitringa  de  Vet.  Synagog.  lib.  pp.  85,  86.  The  same  view  is  pre- 
iii.  c.  9,  p.  727,  &c.  Reland's  Antiq.  sented  by  Forbes,  in  his  Irenicum,  pp. 
Jennings' Jewish  Antiq.  vol.  ii.  pp.  54,  242,  243,  245.  In  Baxter  on  Episc. 
55.  b.  ii.  c.  1.     Also  in  Gillespie's  Ch.  p.  70. 

of  Scotl.  part  i.  c.  1.  2,  3,  4,  5,  6,  7,  8,  7)  See  Macknight's  Com. on  1  Tim. 

and  9,  and  in  a  Confut.  of  I.  S.  Vind.  of  5 :  17,  vol.  iii.  p.  205,  where  the  duties 

the   Princ.  of  the   Cypr.   Age,  p.  151.  of  such  an  officer  are  fully  described. 

Baxter's   Treatise  on   Episcopacy,  p.  Benson,  in  his  Essay  on   the   Public 

13,  §  19.  Worship  of  the  Early  Christians,  very 

2)  Acts,  13:  15;  Luke,  13  14;  fully  establishes  the  fact  ofsuchpre- 
Acts,  IS  :  S  and  17.  siding  officers.     See  Paraphrase  on  St. 

3)  Whateley's  Kingdom  of  Christ,  Paul's  Epistles,  pp.  117,  119.  c.  3.  §  1. 
Essay  ii.  $  7,  p.  72.  $  3.  and  §  G. 

4)  Peirces  Vind.  of  Presb.  Ordin.  8)  Neander's  Hist,  of  the  First 
part  ii.  p.  8S,  and  elsewhere.  Plant,  of  Christ'y.  vol.  i.  pp.  169,  170. 

5)  Matt.  18. 


152  PRESBYTERS    PRESIDED    OVER  [bOOK  I. 

riders,  to  distinguish  thern  from  the  stated  president.1  In  this 
way  the  scriptures  and  the  primitive  fathers  are  harmonized, 
and  the  gradual  introduction  of  the  doctrine  of  prelacy  is  made 
apparent  and  easy,  the  prelate  being  the  chief  presbyter,  and 
the  other  presbyters  his  colleagues.'2 

Allusion  appears  to  be  made  to  such  presidents  or  moder- 
ators, in  several  passages  of  the  New  Testament.  They  are 
referred  to  in  that  passage  already  considered,  where  the 
apostle  says,  'the  spirits  of  the  prophets  (that  is,  says  lord 
Barrington,of  some  of  the  prophets)  are  subject  to  the  (other) 
prophets."  3  '  It  is  most  natural  to  think  the  full  meaning  of 
this  place  to  be  that  the  spirits  of  the  prophets,  who  prophesied 
or  exhorted,  were,  when  duly  regulated,  subject  to  the  proph- 
ets who  presided.' 4  Spiritual  gifts,  as  we  know,  were  very 
generally  bestowed  upon  the  members  of  the  church  of  Cor- 
inlh.5  Their  possessors,  as  we  are  also  informed,  were  apt  to 
put  the  public  assemblies  into  confusion  by  their  disorderly 
exercise;  by  their  strife  and  emulation;  and  by  all  speaking 
together,  and  in  unknown  tongues.0  The  apostle,  therefore, 
directs  lhat  they  should  speak  one  by  one  ;  that  whilst  one 
spake  the  others  should  sit  still  and  judge;  and  that  the 
spirits  of  those  who  were  led  to  exercise  their  gifts,  should  be 
subject  to  those  who  presided. 

The  Thessalonians  also  enjoyed  a  large  measure  of  these 
spiritual  gifts,7  and  stood  in  need  of  the  same  wise  direction. 
We  learn,  too,  that  there  was  a  synagogue  in  Thessalonica,8 
and  that  some  of  the  Jews  received  ihc  gospel,  and  united  in 
forming  a  christian  church,  in  connection  with  a  great  multi- 
tude of  those  Gentiles  who  had  become  proselytes  of  the  gate, 
and  worshippers  of  the  one  only  and  true  God.0  It  is  also 
probable,  that  their  teachers  woe  converts  from  Judaism,  or, 
at  least,  proselyted  Gentiles.  Bui  if  so.  they  had  been  all 
accustomed  to  the  ecclesiastical  government  of  a  number  of 
presbyters,  with  a  president  who  moderated  their  proceedings, 
and  would  naturally,  therefore,  adopl  this  plan  as  the  policy 
of  their  church.  Some  of  the  church,  however,  appear  to  have 
refused  to  subject  themselves  to  their  teachers,  and  to  this  plan 
of  discipline,  and  gave  themselves  up  to  disorder,  and  confu- 

1)  See  Boyse'a  Anct.  Episcopacy,  4)  Lord  Barrington's  Wks.  p.  84. 
Prof.,  p.  ix  and  X < - : i n < l « •  i " s  Hist,  of  the  5)  See  the  Epistles. 

First  Plant,  of  Christ'?,  pp.   L69,  170.  6)  1  Cor.  c.  1  I. 

Also  Goode's  Div.  Rule  of  Faith,  vol.  7)   Acts,  174;  1  Thess.  5  :  19-21  ; 

ii.p.  77.  Barrington,  p.84 

2)  Benson  on  Rrli-:.  Worship  of  8)  Acts,  IS:  1. 
Christians,  c.  3.  $  6.  p.  9)  Acts,  17. 

3)  1  Cor.  14:  32. 


CHAP  VI.]  THE    APOSTOLIC    CHURCHES.  153 

sion,  under  the  pretence  of  edifying  others.  The  apostle, 
therefore,  beseeches  them  to  '  know,'  reverence,  and  respect, 
'  those  that  labor  among  them,'  as  their  stated  ministers,  '  and 
are  over  (or  preside  over)  you,'  that  is,  says  Doddridge,  those 
'  who  preside  over  your  assemblies,  and  moderate  in  them.' ! 
In  this  way,  the  apostle  admonishes  them  to  '  be  at  peace 
among  themselves,'  and  '  to  warn  them  that  are  unruly,'  or 
disorderly,  proudly  refusing,  like  soldiers  who  will  not  keep 
their  ranks  or  know  their  colors,  to  concur  with  the  arrange- 
ments of  their  overseers.  The  apostle  here  appears  to  dis- 
tinguish the  presbyters  into  three  classes,  1,  those  who  labor- 
ed, that  is,  for  the  extension  of  the  church  by  the  conversion 
of  Jews  and  Gentiles ;  2,  those  who  presided  or  governed  in 
all  its  domestic  services  and  worship  ;  and  3,  those  who, 
while  the  others  presided  and  governed,  were  employed  in 
the  instruction  and  admonition  of  the  assembled  christians. 
He  therefore  in  effect  exhorted  them,  '  to  take  care  that  their 
presbyters  be  supplied  with  every  necessary,  first  of  all  those 
among  them  who,  with  all  their  might,  labored  to  propagate 
the  faith  of  Christ  in  the  country  around,  and  in  the  next  place 
those  who  governed  the  church,  and  admonished  and  in- 
structed them  by  their  voice  and  example.'2 

Allusion  is  probably  made  to  the  same  office,  in  the  epistle 
to  the  church  at  Rome,  which  was  in  a  great  measure  com- 
posed of  converted  Jews  or  proselytes,  who  then  swarmed 
in  Rome.  For  in  reference  to  the  diversity  of  spiritual  gifts, 
and  the  various  modes  of  ministry  which  they  occasioned,  the 
apostle  says,  '  he  that  ruleth  let  him  do  it  with  diligence.' 3 
The  original  word  (TTgoiaTa^evog,)  means,  unquestionably,  '  he 
who  presides,'  and  refers  to  ecclesiastical  office.  Some  of 
the  presbyters  were  teachers,  and  others  rulers,  or  presidents, 
according  to  their  gifts.  Those  that  were  called  to  exercise 
the  office  of  ruler  or  president,  were  required  to  do  it  with  at- 
tention and  zeal.  The  word,  which  thus  plainly  refers  to 
ecclesiastical  office,  and  to  some  office  of  presidency  in  the 
church,  is  as  certainly  used  in  1  Thess.  5  :  12,  and  in  1  Tim. 
3 :  4,  12,  to  designate  those  who  held  the  office  of  teacher. 
And  hence  it  would  appear,  that  in  the  apostolic  churches 
there  were  those,  who  held  the  double  office  of  teacher,  and 
governor  or  president.4 

A  similar  allusion  is  made  in   1   Cor.  12:  28,  where  the 

1)  In  loco.  Note.  3)  Rom.  12  :  8. 

2)  Mosheim  Comment.on  the  Aff.  4)  See  Stuart's  Comment,  in  loco, 
of  Christ,  before  Constantine.    vol.  i. 

pp.  217,  218,  Vidal. 

20 


154  PRESBYTERS    PRESIDED    OVER  [BOOK    I. 

apostle,  in  an  enumeration  of  the  same  diversified  ministers, 
both  extraordinary  and  ordinary,  speaks  of  governments 
(nvjFoir.atiz)  as  corresponding  to  those  that  preside,  or  rule. 
This  word,  also,  means  guidance,  direction, steering,  as  in  the 
case  of  the  pilot  of  a  ship.  Hence,  many  critics  understand 
it  here,  as  designating  the  office  of  a  ruler,  or  president,  in 
the  church.  Nor  can  we  see  any  strength  in  the  objection 
urged  against  this  interpretation,  founded  on  the  low  place 
the  office  is  made  to  assume,  seeing  it  was  but  the  exercise 
of  ihe  office  of  teacher,  already  mentioned,  in  this  particular 
way  of  occasional,  or  stated  superintendence  and  direction. 
It  is,  therefore,  purposely  classed  by  the  apostle  among  the 
lowest  offices,  and  such  as  were  mutable,  that  it  might  not  be 
exalted  into  a  distinct  and  separate  order,  or  be  supposed 
to  imply  prerogatives  superior  to  those  of  the  teachers  in 
general.1 

The  same  allusion  would  appear  to  be  made  by  the  apos- 
tle, in  writing  to  the  Hebrew  converts,  throughout  the  world, 
'  Remember  them  who  have  the  rule  over  you,  (i.yov^emv;,) 
and  who  have  spoken  unto  you  the  word  of  God.'  '  Obey 
them  that  have  the  rule  over  you,  (to/;  i-ovufioic,)  and  submit 
yourselves,  for  they  watch  for  your  souls,  as  they  that  must 
give  an  account."- 

That  there  was  such  a  distinction  among  the  presbyters 
of  the  same  church,  is,  however,  placed  beyond  controversy, 
by  the  explicit  statement  of  the  apostle,  in  1  Tim.  5:  17. 
'  Let  the  presbyters  who  rule  well,  (nnnfaToiu:.)  that  is,  who  pre- 
side well,3  directing  and  managing  the  public  worship,  and 
the  other  interests  of  the  church,  be  counted  worthy  of  dou- 
ble honor,  (or  stipend,)  especially  they  who  (besides  these 
duties,  continue  zealously  to)  labor  in  word  and  doctrine.'  It 
here  appears  that  there  were  two  departments  in  which  pres- 
byters might  render  service  to  the  church  :  they  might  be 
especially  devoted  to  the  business  of  teaching  and  preach- 
ing, or  they  might  be  appointed  presidents,  (ttoofoiwis;,) 
standing-  over,  taking  rare    of,  serving  ami  moderating  the 

1)  This  is  the  main  objection  of  ernmonts.  but  helps  and  irovcrnments,' 

Stuart,  who  gives  one  view  in  his  text,  Bince  'there  were   two  sorts  of   the 

and  the  opposite  in  an  elaborate  excurs-  presbyter"*  office  in  teaching  and  gov- 

us.  Our  view  of  this  passage.is  thai  ta-  erning  the  one,  whereof,  some  attained 

ken  by  Mr.Thorndike,  who  •  lys    rhose  not,  even  in  the  apostles  times.'  Prim. 

of  the  presbyters  who  pre  ichednot,are  Govt,  in  Jameson's  Cyp.  p.  550. 

here  called  dv  the  apostle  governments,  2]   neb.  13:  Land  17. 

and  the  deacon's  helps, or  assistants,  to  3)   B  irrington's  Wks.  vol.  i.  p.S7, 

the  government  of  presbyters;  so  that  vol.  ii.  p.  105.     Doddridge,  in  loco. 
it  is  not  to  be  translated  helps  in  gov- 


CHAP.  VI.]         THE  APOSTOLIC  CHURCHES.  155 

councils  of  the  church;  so,  that,  whilst  teaching  and  preach- 
in"-,  ihey  might  also  in  their  turn,  or  when  so  required,  act 
as°presfdents,  or  moderators.  It  is  thus,  that  Maimonides,  in 
his  work  on  the  Sanhedrim,  describes  the  bishop  of  the  syn- 
agogue, to  which  the  apostle  here,  doubtless  alludes, as  'the 
presbyter  who  labored  in  word  and  doctrine,'1  employing,  as 
it  were,  the  very  words  of  the  apostle,  and  proving  that  the 
same  presbyter  who  taught,  might  also  preside,  or  rule.2 
Hence,  Neander  says,  'that  while  all  the  ministers  of  the 
synagogue  were  called  nytoSwrFyoi,  those  who  presided  were 
called,  among  other  names,  by  this  very  title  of  nQoeownss 
rwp  a<5eXoi<p.3  Milton  also  shows,  that  nqoeatug  is  nothing  else 
than  presiding  presbyter.4 

All  presbyters,  it  is  to  be  observed,  were  thus  officially  en- 
titled to  rule  or  preside,  and  at  first  they  may  have  done  so 
alternately,  since  they  are  always  spoken  of  in  the  plural, 
until  the  rule  was  adopted,  that  the  senior  presbyter  should 
statedly  preside.  But  some  presbyters  were  not  qualified  to 
teach  well,  though  well  adapted  to  preside,  and  they,  there- 
fore, who  could  properly  discharge  both  duties,  were  to  be 
regarded  as  worthy  of  double  honor.  The  presbyters,  who 
are  here  said  'to  labor  in  the  word,'  are  included  under  those 
who  rule,  this  office  being  equally  open  to  all,  '  especially 
they,'  that  is,  those  of  'the  presbyters  who  rule  well,  and  are, 
besides,  able  to  preach,  also.'  These  cannot,  therefore,  be  a 
distinct  class,  but  are  a  part  of  the  same  order.  This  is 
manifest,  since  in  other  places  the  apostle  demands  of  bish- 
ops and  presbyters,  between  whom  he  makes  no  distinction, 
the  qualifications  requisite  for  the  office  of  a  teacher,  (1  Tim. 
3:  2,  and  Tit.  1:  9,)  and,  therefore,  unless  we  will  make  the 
apostle  contradict  himself,  he  must  have  regarded  all  presby- 
ters as  teachers,  though  some  were  appointed  to  rule.5  The 
practice  of  the  churches,  in  subsequent  times,  expounds 
this  text;  for  having  few  learned  and  able  speakers,  he  that 
could  preach  best  preached,  ordinarily,  and  was  made  chief, 
or  bishop,  or  president,  while  the  rest  assisted  him  in  govern- 
ment, and  other  offices,  and  taught  ihe  people  more  privately  ; 
being,  however,  regarded  as  of  ihe  same  office  and  order 
with  him,  and  preaching  occasionally,  as  necessity  or  use- 

1)  De  Sanhed.  cap.  4.  4)    See    good  on  in   his    Prelat. 

2)  This  is  also  urged  by  Light-     Episc.  Wks.  vol.  i.  p.  G4. 

foot.     See  Wks.  vol.  i.  pp.  611,  612.  5)  This  view  of  the  passage,  I 

3)  Hist,  of  the  First  Plant,  of  find  urged  at  length,  by  Macknight, 
Chr.  vol.  i.  p.  177.  See  also  Vitringa  Comm.  in  loco,  vol.  lii.  pp.  206,  207. 
de  Synag.  Vet.  lib.  ii.  c.  11.  Reland  Riddle's  Christ'n  Antiq.  p.  231.  See 
Antiq.  Ebr.  1 :  10.  Riddle's  Christ'n  also  Neander's  Hist,  of  the  First 
Antiq.  p.  160.  Plant,   of   Christ'y,  vol.  l.  p.  177.— 


156  PRESBYTERS    TUESIDED    OVER  [BOOK   I. 

fulness  required.1  Nor  is  it  any  objection  to  this  interpreta- 
tion, that  it  supposes  in  each  church  a  plurality  of  presbyters, 
which  would  in  many  cases  be  useless,  and  beyond  the 
ability  of  the  church  to  maintain.  For  while  in  many  cases, 
as  in  that  of  Gregory  Thaumaturgus,  whose  congregation 
numbered  seventeen  persons,  there  was  only  one  bishop,  or 
presbyter,  yet  generally  a  plurality  did  in  fact  exist,  and 
were  very  necessary,  when  we  consider  the  circumstances  of 
the  church  at  that  time,  and  its  relations  to  the  infidel  world 
around  it.  And  as  to  support,  we  know  that  all  the  officers 
were  provided  for  out  of  a  common  stock ;  that  the  weekly 
collections  for  this  purpose  were  very  liberal;  that  many 
supported  themselves  out  of  their  own  resources ;  that  many 
followed  in  part  some  lucrative  employment;  that  the  presbyters 
all  lived  together,  with  their  president ;  and  that  their  mode 
of  living  was  at  first  strictly  economical.2  Neither  is  it 
any  valid  objection  to  this  interpretation,  that,  according  to 
presbyterians,  this  passage  refers  to  the  two  classes  of  pres- 
byters—  the  teaching  and  the  ruling  elders,  and  not  to  the 
two  offices  or  employments  of  the  same  class  of  officers. 
This  view  of  the  passage  we  are  constrained  to  reject,  for 
many  reasons,  which  we  will  offer  briefly  in  a  note.:J  We 
do  not  think  there  is  any  evidence,  whatever,  that  our  ruling 
elders  are  in  any  case  alluded  to  in  scripture,  under  the 
term  'presbyters,'  or  'elders.'  These  titles  are,  we  think,  in 
all  cases,  employed  to  denote  teachers,  or  ministers.  The 
same  is  true  of  the  ksus  loquendi  of  the  fathers.  With  them, 
also,  the  term  presbyter  is  employed  to  denote  the  order  of 
teacher,  and  not  the  order  of  ruling  elder.  This  latter  office 
they  certainly  refer  to,  but  it  is  under  the  term  senior,  and 
sc  mores  plebis. 

The  officers,  now  called  ruling  elders,  are  still,  however,  to 
be  regarded  as  scriptural  and  proper.  They  are  spoken  of 
in   scripture,   although   not   under    the   title   of    presbyters. 

Goode's  Div.  Rulo  of  Faith,  vol.  ii.  p.  presbyter,  namely, to  teach  and  govern, 

62.     Riddle's  Christ'n  Antiq.  B.  iii.  c.  before   he   can  be   worthy  of  double 

4,  4  2,  pp.  231, 232, 233.    See  also  231.  honor.'  Bilson's  Perpet.  Govt,  of  Chr'n 

Lightfoot's  Wks.  vol.  iii.  pp.  258,  259.  Ch.    Ep.     Ded.    pp.   8,   '.'.    and     131. 

Mosheim's  Commentaries,  by    Vidal,  Barrington's  Wks.  vol.  ii.  p.  165. 
vol.i.pp  215-218.    Voetins'a  Pol  1)    Baxter,  on   Episc.  part  ii.  p. 

9.  torn.  iii. p.  439,  (*<-.  Neander's  12'2.     Apost  Fath.  ed.  Cotel.  torn.  i. 

Hist  of  the  Planting  of  Christ,  vol.  i.  p.  I 

pp.    174  and    178.    Also   Hist,   of  the  Anct.   Episc.  pp. 

Chr.ReL  vol. i. pp.  189-191,  'Preshy-  29,  urn- mi.  where  this  objection  is 

ters,  for  rating  well,  are  worthy  of  fully  met.    That  there  were  Beveral 

double  honor,  specially,  tor  laboring  in  teaching  presbyters  in  the  same  church, 

the  word.     Here  are  not  two  sorts  of  appears  from  Cyprian.  Ep    - 
elders  .   .    .   but  two  duties  of  each  3)  See  Note  A. 


CHAP.  VI.]  THE    APOSTOLIC    CHURCHES.  157 

Christ,  as  we  have  seen,  delegated  all  power  to  the  body  of 
the  church,  so  that  every  member  has  an  equal  right  to  parti- 
cipate in  its  government.  But,  as  all  cannot  be  officers,  and 
as  all  cannot  meet  to  transact  business,  they  must  act  by  del- 
egated officers,  that  is,  by  ruling  elders,  who  are,  as  our  stand- 
ards teach,  the  representatives  of  the  people.  We  find, 
therefore,  that  such  officers  sat  with  the  apostles  and  presby- 
ters, in  the  councils  of  the  church,  as  delegated  commission- 
ers, under  the  title  of  '  the  brethren.' l  They  are  also  prob- 
ably referred  to  in  other  passages. 2 

In  conclusion,  that  no  one  may  think,  that,  in  thus  con- 
tending for  a  presidency  among  co-equal  presbyters,  we  are 
advocating  a  novel  theory,  or  one  contrary  to  the  principles 
of  presbyterianism,  we  beg  leave  to  quote  the  words  of  the 
divines  of  the  synod  of  the  province  of  London. 3  '  The 
ancient  fathers,'  say  these  divines,  'in  the  point  of  episco- 
pacy, differ  more  from  the  high  prelatist,  than  from  the  pres- 
byterian ;  for  the  presbyterians  always  have  a  president  to 
guide  their  actions,  which  they  acknowledge  may  be  perpet- 
ual durante  vita  modo  se  bene  gesserit ;  or  temporary,  to 
avoid  inconvenience,  which  Bilson  takes  hold  of  as  advanta- 
geous, because  so  little  discrepant  (as  he  saith)  from  what 
he  maintaineth.'  Beza  also,  (the  leader  against  prelacy,) 
says,  '  It  is  of  divine  institution,  that  in  every  assembly  of 
presbyters,  there  be  one  that  go  before,  and  be  above  the  rest.' 

§  6.     This  view  of  the  apostolic  churches  confirmed  by  the 

fathers. 

It  is  not  a  little  confirmatory  of  this  view,  to  find  these 
very  words  upon  which  we  have  been  commenting,  adopted 
by  the  usus  loquendi  of  the  early  church,  as  the  titles  of  the 
officiating  and  presiding  teacher  or  pastor.  Polycarp,  in  his 
letter  to  Valens,  recognises  the  authority  of  the  presbyters 
over  him,  their  co-presbyter,  and  represents  him  as  having 
been  'made  a  presbyter  among  them.''4  Clemens  speaks  of 
'  the  presbyters  appointed  over '  the  church  at  Corinth,  as 
having  the  gifts,  enicrxonr);,  or  the  episcopacy.5 

Thus  Justin  Martyr  mentions  the  nune otoc  tuv  adtXycor,  who 
was  a  presbyter,  who  presided,  and  offered  up  the  eucharistic 

1)  Acts,  1:  15-26;    6:1-6;  and  Govt.    p.     347.       See    also     Calvin's 
15th.  Instit. 

2)  e.  g.  1  Cor.     Rom.  8.  4)  Dr.  Wilson's    Prim.    Govt.  p. 

3)  Jus.  Div.    Ministerii  App.    p.  227. 

122,  part  ii.     Beza  de  Gradibus  Min.  5)  Ibid. 

Evang.  in   Baxter's  Disput.   on  Ch. 


l-~s  TESTIMONY    OF    THE    FATHERS  [BOOK   I. 

prayers.  He  calls  him  'that  one  of  the  brethren  who  pre- 
sides.'1 Irenseus,  in  describing  the  succession  of  bishops, 
calls  them  'presbyters,  presiding  among  their  brethren.' 
Such  were  Soter,  Victor,  and  others,  who  are  now  glorified 
into  popes,  but  who,  in  the  days  of  Irenaeus,  were  only 
TTQfoSureooi  m  nqoiaravTsg,  presiding  or  ruling  presbyters.2  Clem- 
ent of  Alexandria,  places  the  honor  of  bishops  in  their 
having  the  first  seat  in  the  presbytery,  that  is,  among  the 
other  presbyters,  nQuToxudedgux.3  Tertullian  also  represents  the 
government  of  the  church  as  resident  in  the  council  of  pres- 
byters, ecclesiastici  ordinis  concessus,  of  which  the  bishop 
was  the  antistes,  precsidens,  or  summus  sacerdos.  '  The 
presidents  that  bear  rule,  are,'  says  he,  'certain  approved 
presbyters.'4  Even  Ignatius  describes  the  bishop  as  the  officer 
of  an  individual  church,  and  as  occupying  the  first  seat  ngox- 
udripsvov.  The  apostolical  tradition  ascribed  to  Hippolytus, 
represents  the  bishop  or  moderator  asking  the  presbytery  of 
the  church  over  which  a  pastor  was  to  be  set  apart,  '  whom 
they  desire  for  a  president?'  ovourowiai  eig itnyoiia.  The  setting 
apart  of  the  presiding  bishop,  or  presbyter,  was,  by  'the  dea- 
cons holding  the  divine  gospels  over  his  head,'  while  presby- 
ters were  ordained  by  imposition  of  hands;  nor  is  there  any 
proof  that  the  prelates,  or  presiding  bishops,  were  separately 
ordained  by  imposition  of  hands,  before  the  third  century.5 

Basil  speaks  of  the  ttoofotuts;  or  rulers  of  Christ's  flock.6 
Gregory,  of  Nyssa,  calls  bishops  the  spiritual  noofarwrfc  or 
rulers. 7"  Both  Theodoret  and  Theophylact  explain  the  term  as 
referring  to  those  who  preach,  and  administer  the  sacraments, 
and  preside  over  spiritual  affairs.8  Chrysostom  is  of  the 
sane  opinion.0  Isidore,  of  Pelusuim,  in  the  fifth  century, 
uses  the  words  ngoearwg,  emcrxonoc,  and  te^euc,  promiscuously, 
for  the  same  office.10  Augustine  testifies  to  the  same  ihins:; 
'for  what  is  a  bishop,'  says  he,  'but  a  primus  presbyter,  that 
is,  a  high  priest,  (who  was  in  order,  only  a  priest,)  and  he, 
(that  is,  the  apostle,)  calls  them  no  otherwise  than  his  co- 
presbyters,  and  co-priests.' ll  In  like  manner  does  he  employ 
the    term   sacerdos,   priest,   as    synonymous   with    episcojnts, 

1 )  Apol.  ad  Anion.  Sect.  T.  c.  G7.  7)   In  ibid. 

2)  Dr.  Wilson's   Prim.    Govt.  p.  8)  In  ibid,  and  p.  194. 

227.  Dal  Tim.  5:  17,  and  Dr.  Wil- 

3)  Ibid,  p.  228.  6on's  Prim.  Govt.  p.  l.r)S. 

4)  See  in  anhb.  Usher's  Reduc-  10)  See  Dr.  Wilson's  Prim.  Ch.  p. 
tion  of  F.pisr.  100. 

5)  Dr.    WiUon'l    Prim.   Govt.   p.  11)  Tom.  iv.  7S0,  in  Dr.  Wilson, 
229.  p.  162. 

C)  In  Ps.  2S.     In   Suiceri  Thes. 
in  voce. 


CHAP.  VI.]    TO  THE  AUTHORITY  OF  PRESBYTERS.         159 

bishop,  occasionally  prefixing  the  epithet  summus,  or  chief, 
and  thus  regarding  the  bishop  as  no  more  than  the  primus, 
presiding  or  ruling  presbyter.1  Cyprian  is  strong  in  confirm- 
ation pf  the  same  position.  While  he  employs  'the  office 
of  a  priesthood,'  and  'the  degree  of  a  bishop,'  as  synony- 
mous,2 his  great  argument,  upon  which  he  frequently  dwells, 
for  the  superior  honor  of  bishops,  is  founded  upon  the 
preeminence  of  Peter  over  the  other  apostles.  But  he  him- 
self teaches,  and  the  fathers  generally  taught,  that  Peter  was 
only  primus  inter  pares,  and  that  all  the  apostles  were  one  in 
order,  and  equal  in  power.  And,  therefore,  he  must  have 
believed  that  bishops  were  greater  in  honor  than  other  pres- 
byters, only  because  elevated  to  the  situation  of  presidency.3 
He  thought  Peter  was  ordinarily  praeses,  or  moderator,  in  the 
apostolic  presbytery,  and  that  bishops  stood  in  the  same 
relation  to  their  presbyters.  Cyprian,  in  fact,  was  nothing 
more  nor  less  than  moderator  of  his  eight  presbyters,  without 
whom  he  could  do  nothing.4  Such  was  also  the  case  with 
Cornelius,  bishop  of  Rome.5  Sozomen,  the  ecclesiastical 
historian,  is  also  found  using  the  terms  BTuaxnTio;,  Trooeaioi;, 
r,vr,fievog,  and  Txonaiuny^  as  convertible  terms,  and  thus  pre- 
serving the  original  idea  of  the  bishop,  as  the  presiding 
presbyter.6  Hilary,  under  the  names  of  Ambrose  and  others, 
calls  the  bishop  primus  presbyter.1  Optatus  calls  him 
primicerms,  which,  as  a  learned  civilian  defines  it,  means 
tiquhov  rijg  Twtfoi;,  the  first  of  his  order,s  and  consequently,  still 
a  presbyter.  The  presbyter  is  thus  described  by  Gregory 
Nazianzen,  as  the  second  bishop,  evdevre qoic  Oooroi;.  Just  as  the 
prsetor  Urbanus  was  called  maximus,  while  yet  he  had  no 
more  power  than  the  others,  but  only  a  greater  dignity ;  and 
as  the  chief  archon  at  Athens  was  only  one  among  many, 
pares  protestate,  so  presbyters  and  bishops  had  idem  ministe- 
rium,  as  Jerome  attests,  and  eaclem  ordinatio,  as  Hilary 
declares;  that  is,  the  same  ministry,  orders,  ordination,  and 
power,  although  the  bishop  had  the  first  place  in  official 
dignity. 

1 )  Tom.  iv.  7S0,  in  Dr.  Wilson,  agrees  the  testimony  of  Usher,  in  his 
p.  182.  Reduction  of  Episc",   who    thus    in- 

2)  Jameson's  Cyp.  Isot.  pp.  395,  terpreted    them.      That    there    were 
362,  and  c.  303.  many  officers  in  the  same  church,  see 

3)  See  this  position  abundantly  Jameson,  pp.  463-464. 

proved  by  Prof.  Jameson,  in  his  Cyp-  6)   See  quoted  in  torn.  iv.  in  Dr. 

rianus  Isotimus,  pp.  374, 375,  377, 380,  Wilson,  p.  101. 

390,  391.  7)  In  1  Tim.  Autor.  Quest,  in  V. 

4)  See  Epistles,  S,  9,  20,  30,  35,  et.  N.  T.  in  Baxter's  Diocesan  Ch.  p 
36,  48,  59,  and  Jameson,  p.  448.  112. 

5)  In  Epistle  49,  ibid.     To  this  8)   Gothofrid  in  Code,  in  ibid. 


160  THE    FATHERS    AND    PRELATISTS    BOTH  [BOOK    I. 

To  these  testimonies  may  be  added  that  of  the  fourth 
council  of  Carthage.  '  Let  the  bishop,  when  he  is  in  the 
church,  and  sitting  in  the  presbytery!  be  placed  in  a  higher 
seal ;  but  when  he  is  in  the  manse,  or  house,  let  him  acknowl- 
edge that  he  is  but  their  colleague;'1  that  is,  says  Chamier, 
'in  the  same  charge  and  office.'2 

It  was  doubtless  in  reference  to  this  primitive  custom  of 
presidency,  that  the  ancients  speak  of  Peter  as  bishop  of 
Antioch  and  Rome ;  James,  of  Jerusalem ;  Timothy,  of 
Ephesus;  Titus,  of  Crete;  and  Mark,  of  Alexandria;  be- 
cause they  were  much  at  those  places,  and  frequently  presided 
in  the  churches  there.  And  hence,  too,  the  doctrine  of  apos- 
tolical succession,  which  was  nothing  more  than  a  list  of 
those  who  presided  over  different  churches/' 

To  our  minds,  this  view  of  the  subject  is  conclusive  proof 
of  the  primitive  order  of  the  ministry,  and  of  the  gradual 
mode  by  which  prelacy  was  introduced.  Prelates  were 
originally  nothing  more  than  the  presiding-  presbyters  of  the 
churches.  Hence,  we  have  found  among  the  ancients  gener- 
ally, that  while  in  Greek  they  were  denominated  ngoidia/ievo 
in  Latin  they  were  called  prepositi,  (hence  provost;)4  and 
while  in  Greek  they  were  called  ngoedgot  that  is,  entitled  to 
the  first  seat,  in  Latin  they  were  called  presides  and  prwsi- 
dentes,  presidents;5  and  hence,  too,  in  order  to  distinguish 
them  from  the  other  presbyters,  who  were  still  called  bishops, 
they  were,  as  Theodoret  says,  denominated  apostles.6  The 
original  parity  of  the  ministry,  the  identity  of  presbyters  and 
bishops,  and  the  derivation  of  prelates  from  this  original  order 
of  presiding  presbyters,  or  moderators,  are  thus  found  to  be 
deeply  imbedded  in  the  whole  nomenclature  of  the  prelacy 
itself,  in  every  age  of  the  church.  Nay,  more  than  this,  it  has 
been  shown  by  Filesacus,  a  Learned  papist,  that  presbyters 
were  anciently  denominated  hiera/rchid  and  prelates^  the 
very  highest  terms  by  which  a  superiority  of  order  is  held 
forth.7  And  hence  a  bishop  has  been  called  'presbyter  cum 
additamento  superferitatis  quoad  regimen  ecclesice?  a  presby- 
ter with  an  addition  of  superiority,  with  regard  to  the  govern- 
ment of  the  church,  with  which  his  appointment  to  the 
presidency  of  the  church  clothes  him.8 

1)  Caranz.  Summ.   Concil.  Can.  Antiq.  p.  161.     Coleman's  ibid,  p.  OS. 
§  5.     In  Jameson's  Cyp.^>.  441.  Bingham,  vol.  i  p-  53,  >V'-. 

2)  Tom.  ii.  lib.  xlv.  c.  14,  N.  12,  in  5)  Riddle's  Ant.p.162.  Bing'm.&c. 
ibid,  p.  442.                                                      C    Riddle,  ibid,  p.  163. 

3)  Benson's  Essay  on  the  Relis;.  7)  See  quoted  in  Baxter  on  Episc. 
Worship  of  the  Christians,  ch.  vii.  ^  G.  part  ii.  p.  115. 

4)   See  authorities  in  Riddle's  Ch.  8)   Goode's  Divine  Rule  of  Faith 

and  Practice,  vol.  ii.  p.  89,  Enjj.  ed. 


CHAP.  VI.]   PROVE    THE    JURISDICTION    OF    PRESBYTERS.  161 


§  7.     This  view  of  the  apostolic  churches  confirmed  by 
prelatists  themselves. 

It  is  universally  conceded  by  all  antiquity,  that  all  things 
in  the  ancient  church  were  ordered  and  transacted  by  the 
general  consent  of  presbyters.  This  position  is  established 
at  great  length  by  Mr.  Thorndike,1  and  by  bishop  Stilling- 
fleet,  who  says,  'there  was  still  one  ecclesiastical  senate 
which  ruled  all  the  several  congregations  of  the  cities  in 
common,  of  which  the  several  presbyters  of  the  congrega- 
tions were  members,  and  in  which  the  bishop  acted  as 
president  of  the  senate.2  Archbishop  Usher  testifies  to  the 
same  thing;  'of  the  many  presbyters,'  says  he,  'who  in 
common  thus  ruled  the  church  of  Ephesus,  there  was  one 
president,  whom  our  Saviour  in  his  epistle  unto  this  church, 
in  a  peculiar  manner,  styleth  the  angel  of  the  church.'3  'I 
maintain,'  says  Saravia,  certainly  one  of  the  most  learned 
and  judicious  of  the  defenders  of  prelacy,  'that  there  is  one 
order  of  all  bishops  ;  only  there  is  an  inequality  of  provinces, 
and  a  diversity  of  degrees.'4 

'  The  Institution  of  a  Christian  Man,'  which  was  approved 
by  the  king,  and  twenty-one  archbishops  and  bishops,  in 
1537,  most  fully  warrants  our  conclusion,  that  the  power  of 
jurisdiction  belongs,  'by  God's  law,'  to  presbyters.  In  treat- 
ing of  '  the  sacrament  of  orders,'  it  holds  this  language. 
'  Forasmuch  as  after  the  mind  of  certain  doctors  of  the 
church,  this  whole  power  and  authority  belonging  unto 
priests  (presbyters)  and  bishops,  (presbyters  are  named  first, 
as  being  the  generic  order,)  is  divided  into  two  parts,  whereof 
the  one  is  called  prolestas  ordinis,  and  the  other  is  called 
protestas  jurisdictionis ;  and  forasmuch,  also,  as  good  consent 
and  agreement  hath  alway  been  in  the  church,  concerning 
the  said  first  part,  and  contrary,  much  controversy  for  this 
other  part  of  jurisdiction ;  we  think  it  convenient,  that  all 
bishops  and  preachers  shall  instruct  and  teach  the  people 
committed  unto  their  charge,  that  the  jurisdiction  committed 
unto  priests  (presbyters)  and  bishops,  by  the  authority 
of  God's  law,  (and  not,  therefore,  by  any  ecclesiastical 
license  or  custom,)  consisteth  in  three  special  points.  The 
first  is,  to  rebuke  and  reprehend  sin,  and  to  excommunicate 

1)  Prim.  Govt,  of  the  Ch.  4)  Defens.  p.  2S6,  in  Baxter  on 

2)  Iren.  pp.  354-356.  Episc.  p.  47. 

3)  Reduction  of  Episc. 

21 


162  THIS    PRESIDENCY    OF    PRESBYTERS  [BOOK    I. 

the  manifest  and  obstinate  sinners,  &C.1  The  second  point 
wherein  consisteth  the  jurisdiction  committed  unto  priests 
and  bishops,  by  the  authority  of  God's  law,  is,  to  approve  and 
admit  such  persons,  as  being  nominated,  elected,  and  present- 
ed unto  them,  to  execute  the  office  and  room  of  preaching 
the  gospel,  and  of  ministering  the  sacraments,  and  to  have 
the  care  of  jurisdiction  over  these  certain  people,  within  this 
parish,  or  within  this  diocese,  who  shall  be  thought  unto 
them  meet  and  worthy  to  exercise  the  same;  and  to  reject 
and  repel  from  the  said  room,  such  as  they  shall  judge  to  be 
unmeet  therefor,2  &c.  The  third  point  is,  to  make  and 
ordain  certain  rules  or  canons,  concerning  holy  days,  fasting 
days,  the  manner  and  ceremonies  to  be  used  in  the  ministra- 
tion of  the  sacraments,  the  diversity  of  degrees  among 
the  ministry,'  &c.3  Thus  manifest  is  it,  that  the  church  of 
England,  in  her  first  reformation,  did  authoritatively  set  forlh 
the  great  presbyterian  principle,  that,  by  authority  of  God's 
word,  there  is  but  one  order  of  ministers,4  called  indifferently 
presbyters  and  bishops,  and  that  to  these  presbyters  was  com- 
mitted the  whole  power  of  the  church,  both  as  it  regards 
ordination  and  jurisdiction.  This  latter  power  was  also  con- 
tinued in  the  English  church,  in  the  common  usage  of  the 
ecclesiastical  courts,  in  which  a  presbyter  is  appointed  to 
denounce  the  sentence  of  excommunication,  though  the 
chancellor  decrees  it.  Nor  is  this  excommunication  com- 
plete, till  a  presbyter  has  denounced  it  in  the  congregation. 
In  the  form  of  their  ordination  also,  until  the  year  1662,  this 
power  was  formally  committed  to  presbyters.5 

§  8.     This  view  of  the  apostolic  churches  explains  all  the 
difficulties  thrown  in  our  way  by  prelatists. 

We  have  dwelt  at  such  length  upon  this  position,  because 
we  regard  it  as  of  primary  importance  in  this  controversy.  This 
view  of  the  primitive  order  of  the  church,  will  at  once  account 
for  all  subsequent  changes  ;  meet  all  the  difficulties  of  the 
case  ;  and  resolve  all  the  problems  which  are  proposed.  Thus, 
when  prelatists  draw  out  their  lists  and  catalogues  of  success- 
ive bishops,  in  the  several  apostolic  churches,  we  find  them 
at  once,  so  far  as  they  are  credible,  in  these  presidents,  who 

1)  See  this  point  fully  dwelt  on,  the  civil  powers,  certain  other  minis- 
at  p.  10S.  ters,  or  officers,  who  should  have  cer- 

2)  See  this  point  fully  dwelt  on,  tain  power,'  &c,  enumerating  every 
at  pp.  109,  110.  ministerial  function,  p.  101. 

3)  Ibid,  at  pp.  110,  111-123.  5)  See  Corbet  on  the  Church,  pp. 

4)  Christ  did  institute,  'besides  45,46. 


CHAP.  VI.]  EXPLAINS    ALL    DIFFICULTIES.  163 

would  naturally  constitute  the  individual  representatives  of 
their  brethren  and  contemporaries.  In  later  times,  when  there 
were  several  congregations  in  the  same  presbytery,  the  presi- 
dent was  made  pastor  of  the  ecclesia  principalis,  the  avdevTixr] 
xajjedga,  which  was  idwg  doovo;  his  peculiar  throne,1  and  thus 
would  he  in  every  way  shine  forth  among  the  other  stars,  as 
the  most  eminent  and  brilliant.2  But,  even  then,  these  presi- 
dents were  eminent  only  as  the  first  in  rank  among  their  col- 
leagues in  the  same  order  and  office,  just  as  were  archdeacons 
among  the  deacons,  archpresbyters  among  the  presbyters, 
archbishops  among  the  bishops,  and  patriarchs  among  the 
archbishops.  Thus,  also,  among  the  archontes  at  Athens, 
while  all  were  equal  in  power,  yet  was  one  called  archon,  by 
way  of  eminence.  His  name  alone  was  inserted  in  the  pub- 
lic records  of  that  year,  which  was  reckoned  from  him.  And 
so  also,  was  it  among  the  five  ephori  at  Sparta,  of  whom,  in 
like  manner,  one  was  chosen  as  president,  and  actually  de- 
nominated ttqoeuto);,  as  Plutarch  informs  us.  So  that  a  suc- 
cession of  single  persons  named  above  the  rest  in  the  apostol- 
ic churches,  would  never  prove  that  they  were  any  other  than 
what  we  have  described — the  ngoearojieg  or  presidents  of  the 
churches,3  especially,  as  this  title  is  given  to  presbyters  as 
well  as  bishops,  even  by  Cyprian  himself.4 

Again,  when  prelatists  taunt  us  with  the  evident  existence 
of  diocesan  prelacy  at  an  early  period,  we  find  its  origin  in 
the  corruption  and  abuse  of  this  apostolic  presbyterianism,  or 
parochial  episcopacy.5  '  For,'  says  the  learned  Whitaker,  the 
darling  of  the  church  of  England,  '  as  at  the  first  one  presby- 
ter was  set  over  the  rest  of  the  presbyters  and  made  a  bishop  ; 
so  afterwards  one  bishop  was  set  over  the  rest  of  the  bishops. 
And  thus  that  custom  hatched  the  pope  with  his  monarchy, 
and  by  degrees  brought  him  into  the  church.'6  '  It  was  the 
judgment  of  her  founders,  (that  is,  of  the  church  of  England,) 
perhaps  unanimously,  but  at  all  events  generally,  that  the 
bishop  of  the  primitive  church  was  merely  a  presiding  elder ; 
a  presbyter  ruling  over  presbyters ;  identical  in  order  and 
commission ;  superior  only  in  degree  and  authority.' 7 

1)  Baxter,  as  above,  pp.  108,  109,  byters,  and  thus  begs  the  whole  ques- 
and  auth.  there.  tion.     He  is  ignorant  enough,  also,  to 

2)  See     Henderson's     Rev.    and  adduce    Calvin,  Grotius,   Bucer,  and 
Consid.  p.  336,  &c.  others,  as  favoring  prelacy,  because 

3)  See  Stillingfleet,  Iren.p.  301.  they  approved  of  this  episcopacy,  pp. 

4)  See  Ep.  15  and  21,  and  Boyse's  66, 67,  and  68. 

Anct.  Episc.  pp.  270,  271.  6)   Quaest.  De  Pontif.  Rom.  i.  cap. 

5)  Mr.  Goode,  in  his  Div.  Rule  of    3,  §    29,  in  Jameson,  Cyp.    Isot.     p. 
Faith,  vol.  ii.  pp.  62,  63,  and  65,  offers     281. 

no  other  proof  for  prelacy  than  this  7)  Essays  on  the  Church,  p.  251, 

admitted  presidency  among  the  pres-    by  an  Episcopalian. 


164  TESTIMONY    OF    THE    FATHERS  [BOOK  I. 


§  9.  Proofs  from  the  fathers,  that  presbyters  possess  the 
power  of  discipline  and  excommunication,  the  highest  acts 
of  ecclesiastical  jurisdiction,  and  the  power  generally. 

As  it  regards  the  power  of  discipline,  and  of  excommuni- 
cation, Theodoret  describes  TxoooTaaiav,  jurisdiction,  as  belong- 
ing to  every  presbyter,  '  he  having  the  government  of  the 
church;  and  in  the  exercise  of  it  often  grieving  delinquents, 
they  being  ill-affected  to  him,  will  be  apt  to  bring  false  accu- 
sations.' l  Jerome,  though  a  presbyter,  distinctly  claims  the 
power  of  excommunication.2  He  asserts  that  it  belongs  to 
presbyters  to  deliver  the  offender  to  Satan  by  excommunica- 
tion.3 Chrysostom,  while  a  presbyter,  threatened  some  of  his 
auditory  with  excommunication.4  Justinian,  as  late  as  the 
sixth  age,  plainly  teaches,  in  his  constitutions,  that  presbyters 
might  excommunicate.5  Hilary,  the  deacon,  on  Eph.  4 :  2, 
says,  that  presbyters  ordain,  (consignant,)  or,  as  Mr.  Palmer 
would  translate  it,  confirm  in  the  bishop's  absence,'  'for  both 
arc  priests.'  And  this  privilege  still  remains  a  part  of  the 
power  of  presbyters,  throughout  the  eastern  churches.0  Ter- 
tullian  says,  'the  presbyters  have  the  charge  of  excommuni- 
cation and  censures.'7  He  also  teaches,  that  'the  presidents 
who  bear  rule  are  certain  approved  elders,  (presbyters,)  who 
have  obtained  this  honor  not  by  reward  but  by  good  report;' 
who  were  no  other,  according  to  archbishop  Usher,  than  those 
from  whose  hands  they  used  to  receive  the  sacrament  of  the 
eucharist.'8  As  it  regards  this  power,  generally,  we  know 
that  presbyters  alone  have  governed  the  church  of  Rome  for 
years  together,  when  it  had  no  bishop;9  that  presbyters 
sat  regularly  in  the  provincial,  and  in  many  cases  in  the 
general  councils,  also  ;  and  that  they  did  not  sit  always  in 
the  latter,  because,  as  Dr.  Field  says,  it  was  necessary  to  lim- 
it the  number  of  members.10    Hence,  presbyters  are  still  mem- 

1)  On  Tim.  5:  10.  C)  Palmer  on  the  Ch.  vol.  ii.  p. 

2)  Ad.    Heliodorum.   Mihi    ante     420. 

presbyterum  sedere  non   licet,  illi   si  7)  In  Rutherford's  Plea,  p.  17. 

peccavero  licet  me  tradere  Satanae  ad  8)  Reduction  of  Episc.  in  Jame- 

mteritum    camis,  ut    spiritus  salvus  son's  Cyp.  p.  450. 
6it.  9)  See  instances    in    Baxter    on 

3)  Licet  presbytero  si  peccavero  Episc.  part  ii.  p.  107  ;  and  Blondel,  §  3, 
Satana?  me  tradere.      See  in    Boyse's  pp.  183,  184. 

Episc.  p.  21 1).  10)  See  examples,  in   Baxter  on 

4)  Horn.  17,  in  Matt.  Episc.  part  ii.  pp.  110,  113,  115;    and 

5)  Novel.  123,  c.  11.  and  sex. 39,  Blondel,  §  3,  pp.  202-207;  and  Dr. 
<l  2,  in  Baxter's  Diocesan   Ch.  p.  112.  Field  on  the  Ch.  lib.  v.  ch.  xxvii.  and 

xlix. 


CHAP.  VI.]  TO    THE    POAVERS    OF    PRESBYTERS.  165 

bers  of  the  convocation,  with  full  power  to  vote  and  deliber- 
ate, and  are  in  many  other  ways  recognised  as  inheremly 
possessing  this  power  of  jurisdiction.1  Polycarp  exhorts  the 
Philippians,  'to  submit  themselves  to  the  presbyters  and  dea- 
cons, as  to  Christ.'  Irenaeus,  his  disciple,  admonishes  the 
faithful  of  the  same  duty.2  Tertullian  we  have  already  exam- 
ined. Ignatius  commits  the  government  of  the  church  to  '  a 
senate  of  pastors  or  presbyters,' '  who,'  as  Usher  declares, '  then 
had  a  hand,  not  only  in  the  delivery  of  the  doctrine  and  sac- 
raments, but  also  in  the  administration  of  the  discipline  of 
Christ.'3  Origen  and  Ruffinus  compare  the  presbytery  to  the 
senate  of  a  city ;  Cyprian  and  Firmilianus  ascribe  to 
them,  and  the  other  officers,  the  power  of  the  keys.4  So  also, 
according  to  Socrates,  says  the  Nicene  Council.5  Clemens 
Alexandrinus  places  discipline  in  the  hands  of  the  presbyters.6 
Augustine  and  Gregory,  both  give  the  power  of  censures  to 
presbyters.7  Quotations  to  the  same  effect  from  Dionysius 
Alexandrinus,  Ambrose,  Jerome,  Chrysostom,  Eusebius, 
Zonaras,  Theodoret,  and  Nazianzen,  may  be  seen  in  Ruther- 
ford,8 who  also  proves  that  ihis  was  the  doctrine  of  the  Wal- 
denses,  and  of  the  reformers.9 

Before  leaving  the  subject,  however,  we  would  adduce  one 
example  of  the  practical  exercise  of  this  power  by  presbyters, 
as  late  as  the  third  age,  and  as  it  is  recorded  by  Epiphanius, 
one  of  the  most  arrogant  of  the  prelatic  fathers.  It  will,  from 
this  history,  be  made  clear,  that,  even  then,  bishops  had  no 
other  power  than  that  derived  from  his  office  of  moderator. 
'  After  him,'  says  he,  namely,  Bardesanes,  '  another  heretic, 
Noetus,  appeared,  not  many  years  hence,  but  about  130,  an 
Ephesian  by  birth,  who,  being  inspired  by  a  strange  spirit,  ad- 
ventured to  affirm  and  teach  such  things,  which  neither  the 
prophets,  nor  the  apostles,  nor  the  kirk  from  the  beginning 
held,  nor  ever  thought  of.     Wherefore,  being  puffed  up  by  a 

1)  See  enumerated  in  Baxter,  as  9)  Ibid,  p.  19. 

above, p.  111.  See  also    quotations  from    Cyp- 

2)  Lib.  iv.  c.  43,  and  cap.  44.  rian,  Firmilian,  Gregory,  Naz.,  Chrys- 
See  quoted  in  Rutherford's  Plea,  p.  17.  ostom,     Augustine,    Isidore,      Salvi- 

3)  Reduction  of  Episcop.  in  anus,  Gildas,  &c.  In  Causa  Episco- 
Jameson,  p.  449.  See  fully  quoted  in  pat.  Hierarch.  Lucifuga,  Edinb.  1706, 
Rutherford,  as  above.  p.  25,  &c.     See  also  numerous  proofs 

4)  See  Ep.  14,  33, 10,  68.  to  the  same  effect,  in  Baxter  on  Episc. 

5)  In  Rutherford,  ibid.  ch.    xiii.  part  ii.    p.    104,    &c,    and 

6)  Alex.  Stromat.  lib.  vii.  quoted  ch.  xiv.  where  he  quotes  from  many 
in  Rutherford.  of  the  greatest  prelatists.       See  also 

7)  Contra  Crescon,  l.iii.  c.  5,  6,  numerous  proofs  given  in  Smectym- 
and   Epist.  136.      Greg.  1.  ii.  Ep.  16.  nuus,  pp.38-40,  §  9. 

8)  Plea,  p.  18. 


166  PRESBYTERS    HAVE    EXCOMMUNICATED.  [BOOK   I. 

kind  of  madness,  he  confidently  affirmed,  that  God,  the  Fath- 
er, suffered  ;  but  being  yet  puffed  up  by  greater  pride  and 
madness,  he  called  himself  Moses,  and  his  brother,  Aaron.  In 
the  mean  time  01  uuxugtot  nQBa^vTegoi,&cc.  The  blessed  presby- 
ters (or  pastors)  of  the  kirk,  being  moved  by  the  report  of  this 
matter,  summoned  Noetus  before  them,  and  interrogated  him 
concerning  all  these  matters ;  if  he  had  broached  such  blas- 
phemy against  God,  the  Father.  But  he  began  first  to  deny 
em  top  nqeofiviFoiov  ayo/ievog,  when  he  was  brought  before  the 
presbytery,  that  poisonous  doctrine  which  nobody  before  him 
had  adventured  to  spew  out.  After  that,  when  he  had  infect- 
ed some  with  his  madness,  and  had  gathered  to  himself  about 
ten  persons,  turning  more  insolent,  he  openly  spread  his  her- 
esy. Therefore,  again,  ov  auzot  ngeaftvtegot  the  same  very 
presbyters  summoned,  not  only  him,  but  the  rest,  who  had  un- 
happily joined  with  him,  and  to  interrogate  him  concerning 
the  very  same  thing.  But  he,  with  his  accomplices,  growing 
impudent,  began  boldly  to  contradict  (the  presbytery).  And, 
saith  he,  what  ill  have  I  done  ?  I  adore  one  God  ;  one  I  know, 
neither  that  was  born,  suffered  or  died.  To  which  opinion, 
when  he  adhered,  they  (the  presbyters)  excommunicated  him 
and  his  followers.  At  length  he  died  a  little  after,  with  his 
brother ;  neither  was  he  buried  with  the  like  honor  as  Moses 
of  old,  or  with  the  same  as  Aaron.  For  they  were  rejected 
as  transgressors,  neither  were  they  buried  by  any  catholic. 
Afterwards,  they  who  had  imbibed  his  doctrine  strengthened 
this  opinion,  being  induced  with  the  same  words  with  which 
their  master  was  at  the  beginning.  For  he  told  them,  when 
he  was  interrogated  uno  jov  ngeaSviegiov  by  the  presbyters,  that 
he  worshipped  one  God,' x  6cc. 

1)  See  in  Blondel,  and  in  Jameson's  Sum.  of  the  Episc  Controv.p.  156,  &c. 


CHAPTER   VII- 


PRESBYTERS  ARE,  BY  DIVINE  RIGHT,  CLOTHED  WITH  THE 
POWER  OF  ORDINATION. 


§  1.   The  power  of  presbyters  to  ordain  formerly  acknowledged 
by  the  Anglican  and  Roman  churches. 

Prelatists  claim  certain  powers  and  prerogatives  as  pe- 
culiarly the  right  and  function  of  their  prelates.  By  the 
exercise  of  these  powers,  they  say,  they  are  distinguished,  and 
constituted  the  first  and  highest  order  of  the  christian  minis- 
try. If,  therefore,  it  can  be  shown  that  these  same  powers 
were,  by  divine  right,  vested  in  presbyters,  it  will  of  course 
follow,  that  presbyters  were,  originally,  the  highest  order  of 
the  ministry,  and  that,  as  Jerome  says,  custom,  by  degrees, 
brought  in  the  office  of  prelate  to  rule  and  tyrannize  over  the 
chnrch.  We  have,  therefore,  endeavored  to  make  it  plain, 
that  the  powers  of  preaching,  of  conducting  public  worship, 
of  administering  baptism  and  the  Lord's  supper,  and  of  juris- 
diction, five  of  these  prelatic  functions,  did  originally  belong 
to  presbyters,  and  were,  beyond  doubt,  exercised  by  them. 

There  remains  to  be  considered,  the  sixth  prelatic  function, 
the  power,  namely,  of  ordination,  which  is  considered  essen- 
tial to  complement  and  fill  up  the  plenitude  of  episcopal 
authority.  We  proceed  therefore,  to  show,  that  this  also  was 
originally  inherent  in  the  office  of  the  presbyter.  And  were 
prelatists  to  remain  always  in  the  same  mind,  or  to  allow 
their  own  proceedings  to  be  interpreted  by  common  sense, 
our  argument  need  be  neither  long  nor  difficult.  For  '  The 
Institution  of  a  Christian  Man,'  already  quoted,  and  which 
authoritatively  expressed  the  sentiments  of  the  English  church 
after  the  reformation,  not  only  ascribes  this  power,  as  we  have 
seen,  to  all  ministers  who  are  called  by  it  presbyters  and 
bishops,  but  boldly  declares,  that  this  right  had  never  been 


168  PRESBYTERS    ARE    CLOTHED  [BOOK  I. 

denied  them.  'Forasmuch,'  says  this  work, 'as  the  whole 
power  and  authority  of  the  church,  belonging  unto  priests 
and  bishops,  is  divided  into  two  parts,  whereof  the  one  is 
called  potestas  ordinis,  and  the  other  is  called  polestas  juris- 
diclionis ;  and  forasmuch,  also,  as  good  consent  and  agree- 
ment hath  alway  been  in  the  church  concerning  the  first 
part,  and  contrary,  much  controversy  for  this  other  part  of 
jurisdiction.'1  Such  was  the  judgment  of  the  English  re- 
formed church,  in  1537.  And  that  this  continued  to  be  her 
views,  until  1662,  is  beyond  controversy,  since,  up  to  that 
time,  she  had  only  one  form  of  ordination,  and  in  it  conveyed 
to  presbyters  all  and  every  power,  given  to  those  who  were 
called  bishops.2  The  same  fact  is  still  proclaimed  in  her 
canonical  practice,  which  requires,  in  ordination,  the  presence 
and  concurrence  of  presbyters  —  a  standing  monument  to 
the  truth  of  their  original  rights.  The  same  thing  is  infalli- 
bly taught  in  the  Romish  church,  which  has,  in  numerous 
cases,  authorized  the  consecration,  even  of  bishops,  by  the  con- 
current imposition  of  the  hands,  of  one  or  two  presbyters  out 
of  the  three  ordainers  required  by  the  canons;  and  in  which 
church  it  is  the  prevailing  doctrine,  that  the  prcsbyterate  is 
the  generic  order,  and  the  fountain  of  all  ministerial  power. 

It  is  in  vain  to  allege,  that  this  imposition  of  the  hands  of 
the  presbyters,  with  that  of  the  bishop,  is  merely  for  attestation, 
and  not  for  concurrence.  For  why,  were  this  true,  should 
the  privilege  be  confined  to  presbyters,  and  not  be  extended 
to  deacons  also,  seeing,  that  they,  as  well  as  presbyters,  are 
regarded  as  ministers  by  these  prelatists  ■  And  why,  if  this 
is  the  only  reason  for  this  practice,  should  not  both  pres- 
byters and  deacons  be  permitted  to  express  their  assent  and 
approbation  at  the  ordination  of  prelates  as  well  as  of  pres- 
byters? It  is  plain,  that  the  custom  originated  in  the  acknowl- 
edged and  inherent  power  of  presbyters  to  ordain  presby- 
ters; whereas,  prelates  being,  by  ecclesiastical  law,  elevated  to 
a  new  and  higher  office,  presbyters  were  not  allowed  to  as- 
sist in  their  consecration.  This  reason  the  council  of  Car- 
thage  expressly  a->i:_riis,  when  it  decrees,  that,  while  in  the 
ordination  of  a  presbyter,  presbyters  shall  assist  and  impose 
their  hand-  :  in  the  ordination  of  a  deacon  only  ihe  prelate 
shall  ordain,  'because  he  is  consecrated,  not  to  the  priesthood, 
but  to  the  ministry,'  or  deaconship.3 

1)  Form,  of  Faith,  in    Rei^n  of  2)  Lect.  on  the  Apost.  Succ. 

Henry   VIII.   p.    iu7.     See   also  The  3)  See  in  Baxter  on   Fpisc.  part 

Necess.  Doctr.  pp.  280,  282,  which  is  ii.  p.  109,  c.  Concil.  Carth.  Can.  2,  kc. 
very  strong. 


CHAP.  VII.  ]       WITH    THE    POWER    OF    ORDINATION.  169 

As,  however,  this  right  of  presbyters  is  now  universally 
denied  by  prelatists,  we  will  enter  at  some  length  upon  the 
substantiation  of  the  claim  of  presbyters  to  this  function  also. 

§  2.     The  nature  of  ordination  explained. 

The  functions  already  considered  are  essential  to  the  due 
organization  of  the  church,  and  to  its  right  government  when 
constituted ;  the  power  of  ordination  is  equally  necessary  to 
its  perpetuation.  For  as  there  must  always  be  ministers  to 
guide,  teach,  and  govern  the  church ;  and  as  the  office  of  the 
ministry  is  one  which  no  man  can  lawfully  take  upon  him- 
self without  being  called  thereto  ;  so  must  there  be  some 
body,  or  council,  authorized  to  invest  worthy  and  qualified 
men  with  the  ministerial  office.  The  essence  of  a  call  to  the 
work  of  the  ministry,  consists  in  a  willingness  of  mind,  on 
the  part  of  any  qualified  individual,  to  obey  that  command 
of  Christ,  by  which  ministers  are  authorized  to  go  forth  and 
preach  the  gospel.  That  command  is  the  only  efficient  cause 
of  the  ministry,  —  the  only  warrant  of  its  divine  authority, — 
and  the  only  security  for  its  success.  Christ  alone  could  and 
did  institute  this  office ;  and  He  alone  can  impart  that  spirit- 
ual power  necessary  to  it. 

And  this  He  does  in  the  standing  and  fundamental  law  or 
charter  of  his  church.  He,  therefore,  who  gives  evidence,  suffi- 
cient and  satisfactory,  that  he  has  been  thus  called  of  God,  is 
to  be  set  apart  or  consecrated  to  the  office  of  the  christian  min- 
istry by  ordination.  Ordination  may  be  defined  to  be  an  out- 
ward and  solemn  rite,  by  which  an  individual,  who  has  given 
evidence  of  being  divinely  called,  is,  by  the  lawful  authority  of 
some  particular  church,  invested  with  the  office  of  the  ministry, 
and  thus,  ecclesiastically,  clothed  with  the  name,  character,  and 
authority  of  a  christian  minister.  Ordination,  therefore,  is  a 
solemn  inauguration  into  office,  or  investiture  with  author- 
ity, by  virtue  of  God's  ordinance,  and  as  a  ratification  of  His 
divine  act,  in  having  inwardly  called  and  qualified  the  indi- 
vidual, thus  separated,  to  his  own  instituted  work.  While, 
therefore,  ordination  is  necessary,  as  the  ordinary  and  orderly 
introduction  to  the  ministry ;  it  is  not  so  absolutely  necessary 
as  that  there  can,  in  no  case,  be  a  lawful  and  valid  ministry, 
without  it ;  for  as  the  essence  of  the  ministry  consists  in  the 
plain  manifestation  of  Christ's  will,  that  any  individual  should 
act  under  the  authority  and  promise  of  his  commission ;  so 

22 


170  THE    NATURE    AND    NECESSITY    OF  [BOOK    I. 

may  there  be  eases  when  this  will  be  sufficiently  evident,  al- 
though ordination,  by  man,  may  not  be  procurable.! 

The  writers  of  the  New  Testamenl  use  five  different  words 
in  speaking  of  ordination,-  all  of  which  are  general,  and  can 
be  made  to  mean  no  more  than  to  appoint  or  ///ace  in  office. 
For  the  hierachical  notion,  that  ordination  impresses  a  char- 
acter, imparts  a  fitness  for  the  office  not  previously  possessed, 
communicates  the  gifts  and  graces  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  and 
constitutes  the  most  vile  and  abandoned  men,  the  most  wor- 
thy, and  valid,  and  approved  ministers  —  for  all  this,  there  is 
not  a  shadow  of  support  in  reason,  in  the  word  of  God,  or  in 
actual  fact.  These  suppositions,  on  the  contrary,  we  believe  to 
be  unscriptural,  anti-chrisiian,  and  pernicious  in  the  extreme, 
and  to  be  equally  derogatory  to  the  divine  Head,  and  the 
divine  Agent,  of  the  church.3 

So  much  for  ordination,  in  its  general  character,  as  a  sol- 
emn separation  of  persons  to  a  sacred  office.  But  this  act  of 
consecration  must  be  performed  in  some  particular  manner 
or  form.  The  mode  in  which  this  was  done,  is  recorded  in  five 
places  in  the  New  Testament,  namely,  in  Acts,6:  6.  Acts,13:  3. 
1  Tim. 4:  14,  compared  with  2  Tim.  1:  G,  and  1  Tini.5:  22. 
In  all  these  cases,  we  find  this  act  of  solemn  consecration 
was  symbolized  by  the  laying  on  of  hands  upon  the  head  of 
the  individuals  ordained.  This  form,  or  ceremonial,  had 
been  long  in  use  among  the  Jews,  when  a  benediction  was 
pronounced,  when  pardon  was  proclaimed,  when  the  mirac- 
ulous gifts  of  the  Holy  Spirit  were  bestowed,  when  miracu- 
lous cures  were  performed,  and  when  persons  were  inducted 
into  office.  This  last  use  of  the  ceremony  was  very  com- 
mon in  the  Jewish  synagogue,  and  familiar  to  the  Jews.4 
In  the  case  of  the  deacons,  the  Holy  Spirit  had  been  already 
imparted,  and  their  call  made  certain,  before  they  received 
imposition  of  hands.5  The  apostles,  therefore,  did  not  lay  on 
hands  upon  them  to  bestow  thai  gift  or  that  call,  but  simply 
to  invest  them  with  that  office,  for  which  they  had  been 
divinely  qualified,  and  to  which  they  had  been  called  by  the 
voice  of  the  people.  In  the  case  of  Bamabas  and  Saul,  as 
related  in  Acts,  L3  :  1-3,  imposition  of  hands,  most  assuredly, 
did  not  communicate  any  character  or  gifts,  bul  was  merely 
a  public  designation  i"  the  office  of  the  ministry,  after  the 
customary  form.     Timothy,  in  like  manner,  is  said  to  have 

1)  Mark,  3:    l»;   Acts,    1:   22;  2)  See  Lect.  on  Apost  Succ. 

\cls,  14  :  23;  l  Tim.  2:  :  ;  Titus,  1  i  3]  Bee  Toi-bet's  Remains,  p.  66. 

5.    See  the  subject  l'ullv  examined  by  I)   Numb.  27  :  15 — 23,  &c. 

Dr.  Rice,  in  Evang.  Mag.  vol.  x.  p.  541,  5)  See  Evang.  Mag.   vol.   x.  p 

&.c.  543,  and  Acts,  G. 


CHAP.  VII.]  ORDINATION    EXPLAINED.  171 

been  set  apart,  by  the  laying  on  of  the  hands  of  the  presby- 
tery, to  an  office,  to  which  he  had  been  previously  called  by 
the  voice  of  prophecy.1  It  thus  appears,  that  while  laying  on 
of  hands  was  used  by  the  apostles,  in  the  communication  of 
miraculous  gifts,  and  in  the  public  recognition  of  official  au- 
thority and  office,  it  is  never  employed,  by  the  New  Testa- 
ment writers,  to  signify  the  bestowment  of  the  ordinary  sanc- 
tifying operations  of  the  Holy  Spirit.  No  such  meaning  or 
interpretation  is  sanctioned  by  the  word  of  God,  and  is, 
therefore,  superstitious.  And  since  no  modern  prelates  will 
undertake  to  confer,  by  this  rite,  miraculous  gifts,  the  form 
can  in  no  case  mean  more  than  a  recognition  of  authority. - 
In  conveying  ordination,  the  ordainers  have  no  original  or 
personal  authority  whatever,  but  only  a  ministerial  authority, 
of  investing  with  office,  those  who  give  evidence  of  their 
qualifications,  according  to  the  charter  of  Christ.  This  is  the 
true  source  of  all  original  ministerial  authority.  True  minis- 
ters of  Christ,  are  not  called  or  commissioned  by  man,  but 
by  Him.  They  derive  their  authority,  not  from  man,  but 
from  His  charter.  They  are  not  man-made  ministers,  as  they 
would  be  on  this  prelatical  theory.  Men  only  admit  them 
into  the  exercise  of  that  office,  to  which  Christ  has  commis- 
sioned them,  just  as  civil  officers  are,  by  some  appointed 
form  admitted  to  those  offices,  whose  authority  and  functions 
depend  altogether  upon  the  law  and  charter.  According  to 
scripture,  therefore,  ordination  by  the  imposition  of  hands,  is 
nothing  more  than  induction  into  that  sacred  office,  establish- 
ed by  Jesus  Christ,  and  a  solemn  offering  of  the  person  or- 
dained, to  the  service  and  glory  of  God,  and  to  his  merciful 
assistance  and  blessing.3  It  is  a  declaration,  that  the  individ- 
ual receiving  it,  is  qualified  for  the  office  of  the  ministry,  has 
consented  to  undertake  it,  and  is  thus  recognised  as  posses- 
sing the  authority  conveyed  by  the  charter  of  Christ.  And 
this  investiture  is  made  by  imposition  of  hands,  because  the 
hand  is  identified  with  and  distinctive  of  man,  and  is,  by  the 
most  ancient  belief,  connected  with  authority  and  power. 
Ordination,  therefore,  by  imposition  of  hands,  we  believe  to 
be  important  and  necessary,  not.  as  the  medium  of  any  com- 
municated character,  official  authority,  or  actual  grace,  but 
because  it  is  the  will  of  Christ,  who  has  appointed  it,  that  in 
his  church,  every  thing  should  be  done  decently,  and  in  or- 

1)  See  Evang.  Mag. vol.  x.  p.  545.  3)  See  Calvin,  Instit.  B.   iv.  ch. 

2)  See  this  fully  shown  in  Daille     iii.  §  16. 
Treatise  of  the  Sacramt.  of  Confirmn. 

See  also  Boyse's  Anct.  Episc.  p.  220. 


172  ORDINATION    EXPLAINED.  [BOOK    I. 

der ;  because  it  secures  that  the  teachers  of  religion  shall  be 
as  well  qualified  as  possible,  for  discharging  the  duties  of 
their  office ;  because  it  gives  confidence  to  the  people,  that 
those  who  come  to  them  as  ministers  of  religion,  are  sound 
and  capable  teachers  of  the  truth;1  because  the  dignity  of 
the  ministry  is,  in  this  way,  publicly  recommended  to  the 
people,  and  its  authority  enforced ;  and  because  ministers 
are  thus  admonished,  that  they  are  no  longer  their  own  mas- 
ters, but  devoted  to  the  service  of  God  and  the  church.  And 
this  particular  form,  alone,  is  to  be  observed,  because  this 
was  the  only  form  adopted  by  Christ  and  his  apostles,  and 
is  therefore  urged  upon  us,  as  forcibly  as  it  would  be  by  a 
positive  precept.2  And  although  we  would  not  affirm,  that 
imposition  of  hands  is  necessary  to  the  validity  of  any  min- 
istry, so  that  without  it  Christ  will  not  authenticate  its  acts, 
and  make  it  successful  and  efficient;  we  must  believe  that  it 
is  essential  to  the  regularity  of  any  ministry,  that  is,  its  con- 
formity to  scripture  rule,  and  the  established  laws  of  the 
church ;  and  that  it  ought  not,  therefore,  to  be  omitted. 
Even  when  called,  qualified,  and  authorized  to  engage  in  the 
ministry,  a  man  must  not  enter  upon  the  actual  exercise  of 
it  without  this  solemn  recognition  of  his  call  by  the  church. 
This  is  the  outward  sign  and  seal  of  his  office  in  the  church. 
It  presupposes  his  fitness  and  call  before  God,  and  yet  is  ne- 
cesary,  just  as  is  baptism,  in  order  to  give  him  introduction 
and  admission  to  the  church.  By  this,  the  church  is  author- 
ized to  regard  and  treat  him  as  a  duly  called  and  qualified 
minister,  and  to  give  him  the  respect  and  obedience  due  to 
his  sacred  office.  Wherever,  therefore,  such  ministerial  in- 
vestiture and  ordination  can  be  obtained,  the  order  of  Christ's 
house  requires  every  one,  who  is  called  by  his  Spirit,  to  seek 
it  at  the  hands  of  those  who  have  authority  in  the  church  to 
bestow  it. 

Seeing,  however,  that  we  admit  the  importance  and  neces- 
sity of  ordination  by  imposition  of  hands,  for  the  sake  of  or- 
der, and  for  the  security  of  the  truth,  the  question  recurs  to 
whom  it  appertains,  on  behalf  of  the  church,  and  in  Christ's 
name,  thus  solemnly  to  induct  into  the  office  of  the  ministry. 
And  that  this  right  or  duty  belongs  to  presbyters,  we  will 
now  endeavor  to  prove. 

1)  Dr.  Rice,  ibid,  p.  Til.").  mcr  denied  the  necessity  of  ordination 

2)  Calvin,  as    above.      See  also     at  all.     See  in  Presb.  Def.  p.  50.     Mc- 
Jus.  Div.  Min.  p.  1"3,  part  ii.     Cran-     Crie's  Knox,  vol.  i.  p.  401. 


CHAP.  VII.]  PRESBYTERS  CAN    ORDAIN.  173 


§  3.    A  general  argnm  ent,  in  favor  of  ordination  by  presbyters. 

Before  proceeding  to  any  formal  proof,  that  presbyters  can 
ordain,  there  is  one  general  argument  to  which  we  would 
advert.  The  commission,  as  we  have  seen,  necessarily  includes 
the  power  of  ordination.  But  this  applies  to  presbyters,  and 
is  the  basis  of  their  ministerial  authority  and  existence. 
Moreover,  this  commission  is  one,  so  that  to  whomsoever  it 
applies,  it  gives  all  the  powers  and  rights  vested  by  it.  Being 
also  divine,  it  is  beyond  the  control  of  man,  and  cannot 
be  altered  or  divided.  The  power  and  office  of  the  ministry 
are  immediately  from  Christ,  and  not  from  the  church.  The 
church  can  only  designate  the  persons  to  whom  that  power 
and  office  shall  be  given,  and  ministerially  deliver  to  them 
possession,  by  the  investing  right  of  ordination.  Every  min- 
ister, therefore,  must  possess  the  power  of  ordination,  as  well 
as  of  jurisdiction;  and  this  power,  coming  directly  from 
Christ,  no  authority  of  man  can  deprive  any  of  Christ's  minis- 
ters of  this  or  any  other  part  of  the  authority  given  by  Him. 
And  since  presbyters  are  confessedly  ministers  of  Christ,  and 
instituted  by  this  commission,  this  power  must  be  theirs. 

'  Ordinis  est  ordinarc,'  says  archbishop  Usher,  '  and  what 
any  one  has  received,  that  he  can  also  give,'  says  Jerome, l 
that  is,  he  that  hath  the  order,  hath  intrinsically  the  power,  to 
ordain.  '  Taking  things  in  themselves,'  says  bishop  Burnet, 
4  it  will  follow,  that  whatever  power  one  hath,  he  may  trans- 
mit to  others,  and  therefore,  there  seems  to  be  small  reason, 
why  one  who  hath  the  power  of  preaching  the  gospel,  and  ad- 
ministering sacraments,  may  not  also  transmit  the  same  to  oth- 
ers.'2 Maimonides  saith  every  one,  regularly  ordained,  hath 
power  to  ordain  his  disciples  also.3  Now  prelatists  will  gen- 
erally admit,  that  presbyters  do  not  differ  from  prelates  in 
order,  but  only  in  dignity  and  degree.  To  their  order,  there- 
fore, must  inherently  belong  the  power  of  ordination,  how- 
ever ecclesiastical  usage  may  have  limited  it  to  the  prelates. 
For  as  Spalatensis  says  :  '  seeing  the  apostles  gave  the  keys 
equally  to  all,  bishops  and  presbyters  —  and  it  is  a  most  cer- 
tain thing,  that  the  power  of  order  is  plena,  tota,  Integra,  fully, 
totally,  and  entirely,  in  every  bishop  and  lawful  presbyter  — 
no  man  can,  by  divine  right,  reserve  part  of  the  keys  to  him- 
self alone,  and  leave  another  part  to  others.4     To  create  a 

1)  Hieron.  adv.  Lucif.  §  9,  torn.  ii.  3)  Ibid. 

col.  182,  ed.  Vale.  Venet.  4)  De  Rep.  Eccl.  $  2S,  p.  474,  and 

2)  Obs.  on  2d  Canon,  p.  55.  §  4,  p.  465,  in  Baxter,  Episc.  pp.  76.  77. 


174  PRESBYTER8  CAN  ORDAIN.  [BOOK   I. 

new  order,  and  to  transfer  to  it  the  government  and  the  pow- 
er of  ordination,  is  to  exceed  the  claim  of  infallibility,  and  to 
Legislate  in  the  place  of  God.1 

We  would  further  premise,  that  our  inquiry  is  not  into 
that  degree  of  power,  in  ordination  and  in  government, 
which  belonged  to  the  apostles  and  evangelists,  as  extraordi- 
nary officers,  and  endowed  with  supernatural  gifts.  By  their 
gifts  they  were  personally  distinguished,  as  the  first  and  orig- 
inal founders  of  the  church.  In  these  gifts  they  could  not 
be  succeeded,  since  all  such  gifts  have  long  since  ceased. 
The  power,  therefore,  consequent  upon  them,  must  have  also 
terminated  with  their  existence.  And  any  superiority  in  or- 
dination, arising  from  such  gifts,  would  not  affect  the  ques- 
tion, as  to  the  ordinary  and  permanent  ministers  of  the 
church.  The  apostles  could  do  what  the  evangelists  could 
not  do,  who  were  subject  to  them  ;  and  the  evangelists,  what 
ordinary  ministers  could  not  do.  But  as,  apart  from  these 
gifts,  the  apostles  were  presbyters,2  the  question  is,  to  whom, 
as  ordinary  ministers  in  the  church,  the  power  of  ordination 
was  committed,  and  by  whom  it  was  to  be  exercised.  For, 
as  the  apostles  were  not  a  distinct  order  from  evangelists,  be- 
cause superior  in  power  and  gifts;  neither  did  these  gifts, 
and  the  consequent  superiority  of  power,  make  either  of 
them  a  distinct  order  from  presbyters,  but  only  a  distinct  and 
distinguished  class  of  presbyters,  fitted  for  an  honorable  and 
eminent  work.  The  question  therefore  is,  had  presbyters 
the  power  of  ordination,  and  not  whether  they  had  equal 
power  with  the  apostles  and  evangelists. 

§  4.      The  ordination  of  Barnabas  and  Saul  was  conferred 
by  presbyters. 

Our  first  proof,  from  scripture  fads,  is  taken  from  what 
is  recorded  in  the  book  of  Acts,  ch.  13:  1-3.  '  Now  there 
were  in  the  church,  thai  was  at  Antioth,  certain  prophets 
mid  teachers;  as  Barnabas  and  Simeon,  thai  was  called 
Niger,  and  Lucius  of  Cyrene,  and  Manaen,  which  had  been 
broughl  up  with  Herod  the tetrarch,  and  Saul.  As  they  min- 
istered to  the  Lord,  and  fasted,  the  Holj  Ghost  said,  separate 
me, Barnabas  and  Saul,  lor  the  work  whereunto  1  have  called 
them.  And  when  they  had  lasted  and  prayed,  and  laid  their 
hands  <>n  them,  they  sent  them  away.'      Now  what  arc  we  to 

1)  Dr.    Wilson,  on   Prim.  Govt.,  2)   Ch.  i. 

p.   222. 


CHAP  VII.]       A  CASE  OF  PRESBYTERIAN  ORDINATION.  175 

understand  by  this  history  ?  We  affirm,  that  we  have  here 
an  account  of  an  ordination,  that  the  ordination  was  perform- 
ed by  presbyters,  and  that  presbyterian  ordination  is  thus 
sanctioned  by  express  scripture  authority.  And  first,  we  are 
to  prove  that  we  have  here  a  recorded  instance  of  ordination. 
What,  we  again  ask,  is  ordination  ?  It  is  a  public  act  by 
which  any  individual,  who  has  been  lawfully  called  and 
found  qualified,  is  initiated  into  the  ministry,  and  by  this 
external  commission  receives  authority  to  preach,  to  rule,  and  to 
administer  ordinances  in  the  church.  What,  then,  is  essential  to 
ordination?  It  has  been  shown  from  scripture,  the  councils, 
the  ancient  ordinals,  the  doctrine  of  the  reformation,  and  the 
testimony  of  learned  men,  that  the  imposition  of  hands,  and 
of  prayer,  are  the  only  essential  rites  of  ordination.1  By 
these  rites,  they  who  have  been  internally  moved  by  the  Holy 
Ghost,  are  externally  called  and  sent  into  the  ministry  through 
that  ecclesiastical  authority  established  in  the  church.  To 
these  ceremonies  some  have  added  fasting,  recommending, 
that,  previous  to  the  day  of  ordination,  a  fast  day  should  be 
observed  in  the  congregation.2  It  has  also  been  held,  that, 
in  order  to  a  regular  ordination,  there  should  be  present  at 
least  three  ministers.  Now  each  of  these  marks  of  ordina- 
tion are  here  enumerated.  Paul  and  Barnabas  had  previ- 
ously been  moved  by  the  Holy  Ghost,  and  called  into  the 
ministry,  but  were  now  publicly  separated  or  set  apart  to  it, 
by  the  authority  of  certain  ministers  in  the  church  of  Antioch, 
which,  next  to  Jerusalem,  was  then  the  most  prominent  and 
influential  church.  These  ministers  were  thus  led  to  set 
apart  Barnabas  and  Saul,  by  the  express  teaching  of  the 
Holy  Ghost.  And  when  they  had  fasted  and  prayed,  they 
laid  their  hands  upon  them,  and  sent  them  away,  having  thus 
authoritatively  introduced  them,  as  ministers  of  Jesus  Christ, 
to  the  confidence  of  the  churches.  There  is,  therefore,  in 
this  transaction,  all  the  elements  which  constitute  ordination. 
There  can  be  no  other  interpretation  put  upon  the  whole 
transaction.  And  hence  we  must  conclude,  that  we  have 
here  a  case  of  regular  ordination ;  and  that  Saul  and  Barna- 
bas, who  had  before  received  an  extraordinary  call  to  the 
ministry,  (Gal.  1:  1,)  now  entered  upon  their  work,  by  the 
appointed  door  of  ordination.  Their  divine  call  was  in  this 
way  declared,  attested,  and  ratified  to  the  churches. 

1)  Palmer  on  the  Church,  vol.  ii.  2)   Second    Book  of  Discipline, 

p.  440,  Eng.  ed.,  and  vol.  i.  part  i.  ch.  chap.  iii.  §  6.  Form  of  Govt,  of  Presb. 
viii.  CourayeronEnglishOrdinations.     Church,  chap.  xv.  §  11. 


176 


BARNABAS   AND   PAUL 


[book  I. 


This  conclusion  is  sanctioned  by  the  interpretation  put  up- 
on this  passage  in  different  ages  of  the  church,  and  by  many 
of  the  most  able  and  learned  prelatists.  Chrysostom  asserts, 
that  '  Paul  was  ordained  at  Antioch.' 1  Such  also  was  the 
opinion  of  Theophylact  and  CEcumenius.2 

Mr.  Palmer,  in  his  treatise  on  the  church,  assumes,  as  in- 
controvertible, that  this  was  a  case  of  ordination.3  The  same 
opinion  is  strongly  expressed  by  archbishop  Whateley,4  and 
fully  insisted  on  by  archbishop  Wake ;  5  by  archbishop  Pot- 
ter ;  G  by  bishop  Jeremy  Taylor  ;  7  by  bishop  Beveridge ;  8  by 
Dr.  Hammond ;  9  by  Scott,  in  his  Christian  Life ; 10  by  Skel- 
lon  ;  n  by  Burkitt ;  12  by  Dr.  Brett ; 13  by  Rev.  E.  Kelsale ; 14 
by  Dr.  Willet;15  by  Mr.  Thorndike;16  by  Lord  Barring- 
ton;17  by  Hooker;18  by  Hales;19  by  Lightfoot;20  bv  Mr. 
Ollyffe;21  by  Dr.  Pusey;22  by  Mr.  Hinds;23  by  Dr.  Bloom- 
field;24  by  Biscoe;25  by  Brewster;26  by  Dr.  Hawkins:"7  by 
Mr.  Goode;28  by  bishop  Burnet,  who  makes  it  as  much,  and 
as  distinct,  an  ordination  as  any  consecration  of  prelates  to 
their  office;29  by  Mr.  Hamilton;30  by  Grottos;31  by  Clari- 
us  ; 32  by  Diodati ; 33  and  by  Neander.31    But  what  must  set  the 


1)  See  Homily,  in  Acts,  2S, 
vol.  ix.  p.  24 1 . 

2)  Cited  by  Chamier.  See  Div. 
Rite  of  the  Gospel  Min.  part  i.  p.  148. 

3)  On  the  Church,  vol.  ii.  p.  413, 
part  vi.  c.  4. 

4)  Kingdom  of  Christ,  Essay  ii. 
§  15,  p.  106. 

5)  Apost.  Fathers.  Prel.  Disc,  to 
Ep.  of  Barnabas,  §  5,  p.  271,  Eng.  Svo. 
edition. 

6)  On  Ch.  Govt.  p.  101.  Am.  ed 
206,  263. 

7)  Episc.  asserted  in  Wks.  vol. 
vii.  pp.  20,  15,  and  82. 

S)  Wks.  vol.  ii.  pp.  92  and  117. 

9)  On  the  N.  T.  in  loco. 

10)  Wks.  vol.  iii.  p.  118,  Oxf.  ed. 

11)  Wks.  vol.vi.p.  88,  and  vol.  iii. 
Disc.  73. 

12)  On  the  N.  T.  in  loco. 

13)  In  Waterland's  Wks.  vol.  x. 
p.  179. 

ID  In  Waterland's  Wks.  vol.  x. 
pp.  20-22,  where  he  meets  objections. 

1 5)  Synop.  Papismi,  p.  270. 

L6)  Prim.  <  i<>\  i.  of  the  Ch.  c.  5. 
p.  48. 

17)  Theol.  Wks.  vol.  ii.  pp.  32, 
181,  194,  199,  200,  211,213,  224,  229, 
245,  253,  255.  256. 

18)  Eccl.  Tol.  b.  vii.  §  4,  p.  337. 


19)  Analysis  of  Chronology,  vol. 
iii.  p.  456. 

20)  Wks.  vol.  iii.  p.  210,  and  vol. 
viii,  p.  50S-510. 

21)  In  Welles's  Vind.  of  Presb. 
Ord.  p.  49. 

22)  The  Church,  the  Converter  of 
the  Heath.    Serm.  II.  p.  5.    Oxf.  1839. 

23)  Hist,  of  the  Rise  and  Progress 
of  Christ,  vol.  ii.  p.  35. 

24)  Cut.  Digest,  vol.  iv.  pp.407, 
40S. 

25)  The  History  of  the  Acts,  &c. 
Oxf.  1829,  p.  28. 

26)  Lectures  on  the  Acts.  Lond. 
1807.  vol.  i.  pp.  354.  355,  &c. 

27)  On  the  Apost.  Succession, 
1842.  p.  12. 

28)  On  the  Div.  Rule  of  Faith, 
vol.  ii.  pp.  88  69,  Eng.  ed. 

Vind.  of   the    Ch.   of  Scotl. 
Conf.  4,  p.  181. 

30)  Missions,  their  Authority, 
Scope, and  Encouragement.  London, 
1842.  pp.  1">|.  l  15.  .Mr.  H.  is  an  em- 
inent Congregationalist,  and  thus 
gives  op  the  point  of  presbyterian  or- 
dination. 

31)  (on  mi.  in  loco,  and  Acts,  6:2. 

32)  In  Crit.Sacr.tom.  vii.  p.  239. 
Annot.  in  loco. 

34)  Neander's  Hist,  of  Flant.  of 
Christ,  vol.  i.  p.  122. 


CHAP.  VII.]  WERE    ORDAINED    BY    PRESBYTERS.  177 

matter  at  rest  in  the  judgment  of  all  admirers  of  the  English 
church  in  her  palmiest  days  is,  that,  in  the  ordinal  for  the 
consecration  of  bishops,  this  very  case  is  quoted  as  one  of  the 
two  examples  of  ordination  adduced  as  precedents  from  scrip- 
tures, in  these  words,  '  it  is  written  also  in  the  Acts  of  the 
Apostles,  that  the  disciples  which  were  at  Antioch  did  fast  and 
pray,  or  ever  they  laid  hands  upon,  or  sent  forth  Paul  and 
Barnabas.' x  We  are  thus  particular  in  establishing  the  fact 
of  this  ordination,  because  the  admission  of  the  fact  leads  ne- 
cessarily to  our  conclusion,  and  has  therefore  been  most  stout- 
ly resisted  by  recent  prelatical  advocates,  though  with  glaring 
inconsistency  and  contradiction  to  all  authority  and  common 


sense 


2 


But  it  is  said,  that  the  apostle  Paul  was  already  in  the  min- 
istry, and  could  not,  therefore,  be  now  ordained,  or,  if  ordained 
at  all,  that  he  was  reordained  as  a  prelate.3  That  Saul  was 
long  before  this  event  converted,  and  called  by  Christ  into 
the  ministry,  no  one  denies.  But,  to  use  the  words  of  Dr. 
Pusey,  '  St.  Paul,  though  expressly  called  by  our  Lord  from 
heaven, . . .  still  ivent  not  forth  to  his  mission  until  they,  whom 
the  Holy  Ghost  appointed,  had  separated  him  and  Barnabas 
for  the  work,'  &c,  and  this  was  their  first  commission, 
for  he  and  Barnabas  afterwards  fulfilled  their  apostolic  office 
by  their  own  apostolic  authority.'  4 

Lord  Barrington  has  endeavored,  and  we  think  conclusive- 
ly, to  show,  that  it  was  at  his  second  visit  to  Jerusalem,  in 
A.  D.  43,  Saul  was  first  commissioned  as  an  apostle.  Up  to 
that  time  he  had  labored  exclusively  among  the  Jews  and  the 
proselytes  of  the  gate,  but  had  not  ventured  to  preach  the  gos- 
pel to  the  heathen.5  Even  on  the  visit  referred  to,  Paul  was 
not  received  or  generally  recognised  by  the  church  at  Jerusa- 
lem. The  brethren  still  regarded  him  with  suspicion  and  dis- 
trust,6 and  he  was,  therefore,  directed  to  make  haste  and  get 
him  quickly  out  of  Jerusalem,  for  that  Christ  would  send  him 

1)  The  Two  Liturgies  of  Edward  bas,from  Acts,  11 :  23,26,  but  this  pas- 
VI,  Compared,  p.  418.     Oxf.  1S38.  sage  would   imply  the  reverse,  only 

2)  Bishop  Onderdonk's  Episc.  speaking  of  exhorting,  which  is  a 
Tested  by  Script,  in  Wks.  on  Episc.  christian  duty.  Buteven  were  it  so,  it 
pp.   424,  425.     Dr.    Chapman,  in  his     alters  not  the  case. 

Sermons   to   Presbyterians,   ridicules  4)  The  Church,  the  Converter  of 

the  very  idea  that  this  refers  to  ordi-  the  Heathen.  Serm  II.  p.  5.  Oxf.  1839. 

nation,  and  is  ready  to  burst  with  rage  5)  It  was  only,  however,  during 

at  the  'matchless   effrontery'  of  the  a  part  of  the  time   he  thus  preached, 

'  schismatics.'        See    pp.    230,    231.  for  he  spent  a  considerable  portion  of 

'When  Greek  meets  Greek,  then  comes  it  in  retirement  and  study.    See  Mack- 

the  tug  of  war.'  night's  Life  of  Paul,  appended  to  his 

3)  Bishop  Onderdonk  also  asserts  Epistles. 

the  same  thing,  as  it  regarded  Barna-  6)  Acts,  22  :  21. 

23 


178  PAUL    AND    BARNABAS    WERE  [BOOK  I. 

far  hence  to  the  Gentiles.  He  and  Barnabas  departed,  ac- 
cordingly, to  Antioch,  and  there  labored  for  a  whole  year  to- 
gether, among  its  idolatrous  inhabitants,(  Acts,  11.)  And  it 
was  while  here,  that  the  Holy  Ghost  revealed  to  the  prophets 
of  that  church  the  apostleship  of  Saul,  and  the  purposed  mis- 
sion of  him  and  Barnabas.  Up  to  this  time  the  apostle  was 
called  Saul,  and  then  only  was  he  denominated  Paul,  (Acts, 
13 :  9.)  Neither  is  he  ever  called  an  apostle  till  after  this 
event,  (Acts,  14:  4, 14.)  On  the  contrary,  in  the  record  of  this 
event,  he  is  expressly  denominated  '  a  prophet  and  a  teacher.' 
He  is  enumerated  as  one  of  five  others  of  the  same  class  of 
ministers,  and  he  is  introduced  as  the  last  of  the  five.  Up  to 
this  time,  too,  Barnabas  is  always  mentioned  first,  and  Paul 
second,  while  subsequently,  Paul  is  as  constantly  named  first, 
and  spoken  of  as  the  chief  speaker,  (Acts,  13:  43,46,  and  15: 
39.)  It  was,  too,  only  after  being  thus  ordained,  we  read  that 
Paul  and  Barnabas  exercised  their  official  power,  and  '  or- 
dained elders  in  every  city.'  x  Neither  do  we  know  that  Paul 
ever,  before  that  time,  baptized  or  administered  the  Lord's 
supper,  or  engaged  in  any  other  ecclesiastical  function  besides 
preaching.  Paul,  it  is  true,  when  first  converted,  (A.  D.  35,) 
received  the  Holy  Ghost  immediately  after  being  baptized. 
He  was  thus  assured  of  his  divine  call  to  preach  the  gospel, 
at  least,  so  far  as  it  regarded  his  Jewish  brethren  and  the  pros- 
elyted Gentiles.2  And  as  it  admits  of  little  doubt  that  he  had 
been  ordained  and  raised  to  the  dignity  of  a  presbyter  in  the 
Jewish  synagogue,3  he  was  at  once  qualified  to  act  as  a  chris- 
tian prophet  or  teacher,  with  great  propriety  and  acceptance. 
In  this  capacity,  therefore,  without  any  other  ordination  or 
commission,  he  labored  among  the  Hebrews  and  Grecian 
Jews,  until  A.  D.  43  or  44,  when  he  was  favored  with  a  per- 
sonal vision  of  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  and  was  told  by  Him 
that  he  should  be  employed  as  an  apostle  to  the  Gentiles.4 
For  this  purpose  he  was  directed  to  Antioch,  where,  in  order 
that  his  divine  commission  and  apostleship  might  be  attested, 

1)  See  Lord  Barrington's  Wks.  ceived  from  heaven  spiritual  gifts,  and 
vol.  ii.  pp.  104,  199,  '245,  and  as  above  miraculous  powers,  and  a  revelation 
referred  to.  Archbishop  Wake,  as  of  the  gospel,  so  far  as  regarded  the 
above,  and  Rev.  E.  Kersall,  in  Water-  Jews  and  proselyted  Gentiles.  But 
land's  Wks.  vol.  x.  p.  22,  §  27.  Ben-  that  he  had  no  idea  himself  of  preach- 
son's  Hist,  of  Plant,  of  Christ,  vol.  ii.  ing  to  the  heathen  till  long  afterwards, 
c.  1.  See  also  vol.  ii.  b.  iii.  c.  1  and  2. 

2)  Benson,  in  his  History  of  the  3)  Selden  de  Syned.  b.  ii.  c.  6.  § 
First  Planting  of  Christianity,  vol.  i.  2,  p.  1323.  Biscoe's  Hist,  of  the  Acts, 
c.  7,  §  3  and  4,  offers  some  weighty  p.  245. 

reasons  to  show  that  Ananias  did  not  4)    Barrington's  Wks  vol.  ii.  pp. 

and  could  not  confer  the  Holy  Ghost,     252,   253,  and    Benson's    Hist,  of  the 
but  that,  after  his  baptism,  Paul  re-     Plant,  of  Christ,  vol.  ii.  c.  1,p.  10. 


CHAP.   VII.]  ORDAINED    BY    PRESBYTERS.  179 

and  an  exemplar  given  for  all  future  times,  he  was  publicly 
and  solemnly  ordained  ;  and  then,  for  the  first  time,  received 
from  the  Holy  Spirit  those  additional  gifts  and  miraculous 
powers,  by  which  he  was  fully  prepared  for  his  high  and  holy 
calling.1 

Accordingly,  we  find  that  it  was  not  till  Paul  paid  his  third 
visit  to  Jerusalem,  about  the  year  49,  he  was  received  and 
owned  as  an  apostle  by  James,  and  Cephas,  and  John,  and 
the  chief  of  the  Jewish  apostles.2  The  fact,  therefore,  that 
Paul  had  for  many  years  preached  before  this  event  took 
place,  in  no  way  militates  against  the  conclusion  that  he  was 
now  for  the  first  time  publicly  ordained,  since  all  who  receiv- 
ed the  Holy  Ghost,  and  especially  they  who  were  filled  with 
it,  took  that  as  a  sufficient  warrant  and  commission  to  exer- 
cise their  gifts  in  christian  assemblies.  Such  we  know  was 
the  case  with  many  of  the  ancient  prophets,  who,  without  any 
ecclesiastical  standing,  were  authorized  to  declare  the  mes- 
sage of  the  Lord,  some  of  these  not  being  even  of  the  tribe  of 
Levi.3  But  as  God  was  now  about  to  institute  churches 
among  the  Gentiles,  and  fully  to  organize  and  settle  the 
church  generally,  it  pleased  Him,  by  the  express  direction  of 
his  Holy  Spirit,  to  give  us,  in  the  case  of  Barnabas  and  Paul, 
an  explicit  record  of  the  fact,  the  manner,  and  the  necessity 
of  ordination.  '  The  Lord,' says  Lightfoot,  'did  hereby  set 
down  a  platform  of  ordaining  ministers  in  the  church  of  the 
Gentiles  to  future  time.' 4  '  Thus  Paul,  says  archbishop 
Wake,  'though  he  was  called  to  be  an  apostle,  not  by  man, 
but  by  Jesus  Christ,  was  yet  consecrated  to  be  an  apostle  by 
the  ordinary  form  of  imposition  of  hands,  after  he  had 
preached  in  the  church  for  some  time  before.' 5  Or,  to  use 
the  words  of  Skelton,6  who  is  a  high  church  authority.  '  So 
sacred  a  thing  is  the  succession  of  ordination,  that  the  Holy 
Ghost,  who  had  already  enabled  Barnabas  and  Saul  to 
preach  the  word,  ordered  them  to  be  '  separated  for  the  work 
whereunto  He  had  called  them,  by  fasting,  prayer,  and  impo- 
sition of  hands ; '  that  is,  to  be  ordained ;  '  the  Spirit  of  God 
hereby  plainly  showing,  that  He  himself  would  not  break  the 
successive  order  of  mission  established  in  the  church.' 

But  it  is  further  objected,  that  this  could  not  have  been 
an  ordination,  because  Paul  assures  us,  that  he  was  made 
an  apostle  not  of  men,  neither  by  man,  but  by  Jesus  Christ, 

1)  See  enumerated  and  dwelt  on,  3)  See  Plea  for  Presbytery,  p.  35. 
in  Benson's  Hist.  vol.  ii.  p.  11,  &c.                   4)  Wks.  vol.  iii.  pp.  212,  213. 

2)  Gal.  2:9,  and  Benson's  Hist.  5)  Ibid,  p.  272. 

vol.  ii.  pp.  249,  250.  6)  See  Wks.  vol.  iii.  Disc.  71. 


180  PAUL    AND    BARNABAS    WERE  [BOOK   I. 

and  God  the  Father.1  But  it  is  one  thing  to  say  he  was  not 
made,  called,  commissioned,  or  qualified  by  man,  and  quite 
another  to  say  he  was  not  publicly  recognised,  that  is,  ordain- 
ed by  man,  in  obedience  to  a  positive  divine  command.  The 
former,  the  apostle  denies ;  the  latter,  he  allirms.  The 
former  does  not  conflict  with  the  latter,  but,  on  the  contrary, 
formed  the  ground  upon  which  the  latter  was  based,  so  that 
it  was  because  he  had  been  thus  called  of  God  he  was  after- 
wards ordained  by  men.  Neither  was  the  latter  necessary  to 
constitute  Paul  an  apostle  ;  nor  had  it  any  virtue  by  which 
to  qualify  and  fit  him  for  the  office.  We  know  not  that  any 
other  apostle  was  thus  ordained.  But  Paul's  case  was  pecu- 
liar. He  had  not  companied  with  Christ  and  the  other 
twelve.  His  conversion  and  vision  of  the  Saviour,  were 
both  miraculous.  He  was  generally  suspected  and  mistrusted. 
He  was  to  be  the  great  apostle  of  the  Gentiles,  and  the  first 
link  in  that  ministerial  chain  which  was  to  extend  to  the  end 
of  time.  It  was  therefore  necessary,  that  Paul,  not  as  an 
apostle,  but  as  a  minister,  should  be  thus  formally  and  openly 
set  apart  by  ordination. 

It  is  further  objected,  that  the  work  to  which  Paul  was  now 
set  apart  was  a  mere  temporary  mission,  and  that  this,  there- 
fore, was  no  ordination.  But  this  is  a  great  mistake.  The 
work  upon  which  Paul  was  now  to  enter  was  his  apostle- 
ship,  or  mission  to  the  Gentiles.  There  is  an  evident  refer- 
ence in  the  record  to  the  words  of  Christ,  when  he  appeared 
to  Paul  at  Jerusalem,  and  gave  him  his  divine  call,  '  depart, 
for  I  ivill  (that  is,  not  now,  but  shortly  at  Antioch,  by  a  sol- 
emn inauguration  and  ordination,)  send  thee  far  hence  to  the 
Gentiles.'2  To  this  work,  in  fulfilment  of  this  promise,  and 
by  the  direct  instructions  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  he  was  now 
sent  forth  in  company  with  Barnabas.  Accordingly,  being 
sent  forth,  they  occupied  not  less  than  three  years  in  their 
first  tour;3  and  then  'Paul  said  unto  Barnabas,  let  us  go 
again  and  visit  our  brethren  in  every  city,  where  we  have 
preached  the  word  of  the  Lord,  and  see  how  they  do.'4  In 
this  second  tour,  they  employed  some  four  years  more,  with- 
out any  renewed  ordination,  and  then  having  returned  on  a 
visit  to  Antioch,  they  again  went  forth  upon  a  third  mission. 
It  is,  indeed,  true,  that,  when  they  first  returned  to  Antioch, 
they  are  said  to  have  'fulfilled  t lie  work  for  which  they  had 
been  recommended   to   the  grace  of    God.*'"'      The  original 

i)  Onderdonk,  as  above,  p.  .1)  Acts,  14:  3. 

2)  Acts,  22  :  21.     Barrington,  vol.  1 1    lets,  1 5  :  36. 

ii.  p.  255.  5)  Acts,  11:  26. 


CHAP.  VII.]  ORDAINED    BY    PRESBYTERS.  181 

word,  however,  (enlrjgbwuv,)  simply  means,  '  they  fully  or  faith- 
fully performed  the  work  u  But  that  they  had  not  finished  it 
in  the  sense  of  having  completed  it,  is  manifest  from  the  fact, 
that,  as  soon  as  they  had  visited  their  brethren  at  Antioch,  and 
gladdened  their  hearts  by  reporting  their  success,  they  again 
set  forth  upon  the  same  work  which  terminated  only  with 
their  lives. 

Besides,  even  supposing  that  Barnabas  and  Paul  had  been 
previously  ministers,  and  that  this  ordination  referred  only  to 
their  first  subsequent  mission  of  three  years,  are  not  presby- 
terian  ministers  solemnly  set  apart  or  installed  with  prayer 
and  imposition  of  hands,  every  time  they  are  called  to  enter 
upon  some  new  charge  ?  Whether,  therefore,  these  words 
had  reference,  as  we  think  plain,  to  their  whole  ministry,  or 
only  to  a  special  exercise  of  it,  this  record  must  be  considered 
as  describing  their  ordination.  Either  view  of  the  words 
does  not  alter  the  case,  nor  make  that  to  be  no  ordination, 
which  includes  every  thing  that  has  ever  been  considered  as 
the  constitutive  and  essential  parts  of  ordination.  And 
besides,  if  God  himself  orders  a  temporary  mission  of  His 
own  apostle  to  be  given  by  a  plurality  of  presbyters,  or 
teachers,  and  that  too  by  solemn  ordination;  is  there  not 
much  more  reason  to  conclude,  that  He  would  require  the 
same  order  to  be  followed  when  the  mission  is  to  be  for  a 
whole  life  ?  Every  way,  therefore,  does  this  precedent  enforce 
the  law  of  presbyterian  ordination.2 

Although,  therefore,  bishop  Onderdonk,  has  decided  that 
this  certainly  was  not  an  ordination,3  he  has  certainly,  in  so 
doing,  contradicted  all  authority,  and  reason,  and  himself  too, 
since  he  allows,  that  '  it  was  a  setting  apart  of  those  two 
apostles  to  a  particular  field  of  duty,'4  which  is  as  accurate  a 
definition  of  ordination,  as  could  well  be  framed.  We  may, 
then,  be  permitted  to  coincide  in  opinion  with  this  last 
view  of  the  case,  and  with  the  many  learned  men  who  have 
sustained  it,  and  thus  to  conclude,  that  Paul  and  Barnabas, 
were  at  this  time  ordained. 

It  remains  for  us  to  prove,  that  they  were  thus  ordained  by 
presbyters.  And  to  do  this  we  require  no  great  effort  of  in- 
genuity. They  were  ordained  by  '  certain  prophets  and 
teachers  in  the  church  that  was  at  Antioch,'  namely,  Simeon, 
Lucius,  and  Manaen.     Now  who  were  these  prophets  and 

1)  It  is  so  used  evidently  in  Rom.  3)  Episc.  Tested  by  Script. 

15  :  19.     See  Plea  for  Presb.  p.  147.  4)  Ibid. 

2  See   Peirce's    Vind.   of    Presb. 
Ordin.  part  ii.  p.  7. 


182  PAUL    AND    BARNABAS    WERE  [BOOK    I. 

teachers  ?  The  same  individuals  are  called  both  prophets 
and  teachers.  In  regard  to  extraordinary  endowments,  they 
were  prophets;  in  regard  to  ordinary  ministerial  office,  they 
were  teachers.  All  prophets  were  teachers,  though  all  teach- 
ers were  not  prophets.  But  both  referred  to  the  same  minis- 
terial grade,  or  order.  Now,  teachers  were  ordinary  pres- 
byters, who  were  distinguished  from  the  extraordinary  officers 
then  in  the  church.1  Every  presbyter  is  a  teacher,  because 
this  word  designates  the  great  business  and  duty  to  which  he 
is  called  by  the  commission  of  Jesus  Christ.2  These  teachers, 
when  endowed  with  the  extraordinary  influences  of  the  Holy 
Spirit,  were  called  prophets,  and  thus  might  the  same  indi- 
vidual be,  at  the  same  time,  both  a  teacher,  or  an  ordinary 
minister  of  Christ,  and  a  prophet,  or  a  teacher,  supernaturally 
endowed.  In  this  way  only,  can  we  understand  the  classifi- 
cation of  officers  given  by  the  apostle  in  1  Cor.  12 :  28,  and 
Eph.4:  11;  and  the  declaration  here  made,  that  these  men 
were  'prophets  and  teachers.'3 

Certain  it  is,  that  both  prophets  and  teachers,  wThether  con- 
sidered as  two  classes,  or  as  one  only,  were  ranked  below 
apostles.  Such  is  the  explicit  teaching  of  archbishop  Potter,4 
of  Lord  Barrington,5  and  of  Saravia.6  'All  teachers  of  the 
gospel,'  says  the  latter,  'may  be  styled  prophets.'7  '  I  am  of 
opinion,'  however,  'that  these  prophets  were  really  such,  and 
not  metaphorically  so  called,'  and  that  '  these  apostles,  evan- 
gelists, and  prophets,  were  the  first  presbyters  and  bishops  of 
the  church  of  Jerusalem.'8  'There  were  now,'  says  Light- 
foot,  'in  the  church  of  Antioch,  five  men  which  were  both 
prophets  and  teachers,  or  who  did  not  only  instruct  the  peo- 
ple, and  expound  the  scriptures,  but  had  also  the  prophetic 
spirit,  and  were  partakers  of  revelations.'9  '  The  prophets,' 
says  bishop  Blomficld,  'were  probably  of  the  presbyters.'10 
'  These  prophets  and  teachers,  were  certainly  not  men  of 
apostolic  authority,'  says  Mr.  Brewster.11  'These  terms, 
apostles,  prophets,  evangelists,  pastors,  and  teachers,  do  not 
include  so  many  several  orders  or  degrees  of  church  officers, 
but  rather  different  denominations  conferred  upon  those  offi- 
cers which  were  in  the  church  before,  with  relation  to  their 

1)  1  Cor.  12:  28,  and  Eph.4:  12.  7)   Ibid,  p.  91. 

2)  Sadeel  Oper.  p.GOO.    Owen  on  8)   Ibid,  pp.  84,  85. 

Ordin.p.  40.  9)    Wks.  vol.  iii.  p.  210,  and  vol. 

3)  See  Nnander's  Hist,  of  Plant,  of    viii.  p.  156. 

Christ,  vol.  i.  pp.  117,  122.  10)  Lectures  on  the  Acts  of  the 

4)  On  Ch.  Govt.  pp.  92,  93,  102.  Apostles.     Lond.  1829.    p.  110. 

5)  Wks.  vol.  ii.  p.  256.  11)  Lect.  on  the  Acts,  vol.  i.  p. 

6)  On  the  Priesthood,  p.  84.  354. 


CHAP.  VII.]  ORDAINED    BY    PRESBYTERS.  183 

labors? !  '  Under  them,'  (that  is,  apostles,)  says  bishop  Sher- 
lock, 'were  placed  pastors  and  teachers,  who  were  compre- 
hended under  the  general  name  of  prophets.'2 

Now  these  terms  are  here  applied,  without  qualification  or 
distinction,  to  the  whole  five  individuals  enumerated.  These 
ministers  are  also  represented  as  all  belonging  to  the  church 
of  Antioch,  Paul  and  Barnabas  having  labored  there  for  a 
year,  and  the  others  being  probably  fixed,  and  resident  in  the 
place,  for  they  ministered  unto  the  Lord,  '  which  must  be 
understood  of  the  service  of  God  in  their  assemblies,  especial- 
ly in  celebrating  the  eucharist.'3  The  labors  of  Paul  and 
Barnabas  in  this  church,  too,  were  apparently  designed  to 
prepare  them  for  preaching  to  the  idolatrous  Gentiles,  when 
ordained.4  For,  as  it  is  recorded,  the  first  converts  at  Antioch 
were  made  by  the  preaching  of  certain  men  of  Cyprus  and 
Cyrene,  and  it  was  after  hearing  of  their  success,  the  apostles 
sent  Barnabas  there,  who  afterwards  went  himself  to  Tarsus, 
and  brought  Saul  there.  Through  their  efforts,  these  other 
teachers  were  doubtless  raised  up  among  them.5  Bishop 
Jeremy  Taylor  fully  admits  the  same  thing,  saying,  that  these 
men  were  stated  and  regular  ministers  in  that  church.6  Such 
also  is  the  view  taken  of  them  by  Lightfoot.  '  And  it  seems,' 
he  says,  '  that  the  separation  of  Paul  and  Barnabas  to  the 
ministry,  was  done  by  the  stated  ministers  of  that  church, 
and  not  by  others  that  came  thither.  .  .  .  But  these  were 
both  prophets  and  constant  preachers  too.'7  This  same 
learned  episcopalian  adds :  '  And  so  the  other  three,  Simon, 
Lucius,  and  Manaen,  understanding  what  the  Lord  meant, 
and  having  used  another  solemn  day  in  fasting  and  prayer, 
lay  their  hands  upon  them,  and  set  them  apart  by  ordination, 
according  as  the  ordaining  of  elders  among  the  Jews  was  by 
a  triumvirate,  or  by  three  elders.  This  is  the  second  impo- 
sition of  hands  since  the  gospel  began,  which  did  not  confer 
the  Holy  Ghost  with  it ;  for  these  two  were  full  of  the  Holy 
Ghost  before  ;  and  this  is  the  first  ordination  of  elders  since 
the  gospel,  that  was  used  out  of  the  land  of  Israel.  Which 
right  the  Jewish  canons  would  confine  only  to  that  land. 
Which  circumstances,  well  considered,  with  the  employment 
that  these  two  were  to  go  about,  and  this  manner  of  their 

1)  The  episcopal  author  reviewed  4)  Barrington's  Wks.  vol.  ii.  p. 
in  Boyse's  Anct.  Episc.  p.  299.  287. 

2)  Sherlock's  Wks.  vol.  iii.p.  2S1.  5)  Acts,  11 :  23,  24.     Ibid,  p.  2S5. 

3)  Such  are  the  words  of  Thorn-  6)  In  Cler.  Dom.  and  Episc. 
dike's  Prim.  Govt,  of  the  Ch.  p.  48.  Asserted.  Wks.  vol.  vii.  pp.  20,  15, 
See  Bloomtield's  N.  T.  in   loco,  and  and  82. 

Cril.  Digest.  7)  Wks.  vol.  viii.  pp.  456.  457. 


184  PAUL    AND    BARNABAS    WERE  [BOOK   I. 

sending  forth,'  no  better  reason,  I  suppose,  can  be  given  of 
this  present  action,  than  that  the  Lord  did  hereby  set  down  a 
platform  of  ordaining  ministers  in  the  church  of  the  Gentiles 
to  future  times.' 

But  if  these  were  the  regular  ministers  of  the  church  of 
Antioch,  we  have,  in  this  circumstance,  a  clear  demonstration 
that  they  could  not  have  been  of  any  order  higher  than  pres- 
byters, since  there  is  no  canon  more  indubitably  established 
than  this,  that  there  cannot  be  a  plurality  of  prelates  in  any 
one  church.  That  they  were  'ordinary  ministers,'  that  is, 
'  presbyters,'  is  admitted  by  Mr.  Thorndike,  who  is  a  defender 
of  prelacy.1  He  therefore  acknowledges,  that  here  we  have 
'  the  presbytery  of  Antiochia,'  and  that  they  received  the  spirit 
for  this  very  work  of  ordination.2 

As  to  the  idea  of  Dr.  Hammond  and  others,  that  these 
men  were  prelates,  it  is  sufficiently  confuted  by  Whitby,  who 
remarks,3  '  Nor  could  he  have  had  any  temptation  to  have 
made  the  other  three  there  named,  bishops,  but  that  he  finds 
them  laying  on  of  hands,'  v.  2.  '  And,  indeed,  if  there  were 
so  many  bishops  as  he  hath  given  us  in  Judea,  (Acts,  15,)  in 
Syria,  and  Cilicia,  here,  and  so  many  ordained  in  all  other 
churches,  as  he  saith,  (ch.  14:  20,)  is  it  not  wonderful  that 
St.  Paul,  in  all  his  travels,  should  never  meet  with,  resort  to, 
or  be  entertained  by,  any  one  of  them,  but  only  by  the  breth- 
ren at  large  ?  or,  that  he  should  write  to  the  churches  of  the 
Romans,  Corinthians,  Galatians,  Colossians,  and  Thessalo- 
nians,  before  he  went,  bound,  to  Rome,  and  never  salute  any 
bishops  there,  or  give  any  instructions  to  them,  or  so  much 
as  ever  mention  that  he  had  ordained  any  elders,  that  is,  saith 
he,  bishops  there  ?  ' 

These  men  then  were,  and  must  have  been,  simple  pres- 
byters of  the  church  of  Antioch.  As  such,  they  received 
special  instructions  from  the  Holy  Spirit,  in  order  to  give  to 
the  church  a  perpetual  model,  to  set  apart  Barnabas  and  Saul, 
by  ordination.4  They  accordingly  proceeded  to  separate 
them,  and  to  send  them  forth  to  the  work  of  the  gospel  min- 
istry.5 And  thus  are  we  taught  by  the  Holy  Spirit,  first,  in 
suggesting  this  whole  proceeding,  and.  secondly,  in  inspiring 
this  recorded  account  of  it,  that  presbyters  arc  the  divinely 

1)  Prim.  Govt,  of  the   Ch.  ch.  v.  Christ  had  designed  them.'     Lardner, 
p.  48.  in  Wks.  vol.  x.  p.  143. 

2)  Ibid,  ch.  viii.  p.  84.  5)  'And  being  sent  forth  by  this 

3)  Comment.  Fol.  vol.  i.  p.  700.  special   appointment  of  heaven,  they 

4)  'It   was  revealed  unto  them,  went  to  Seleucia.  and  thence  they  sail- 
that  they  should  set  apart   Barnabas  ed  to  Cyprus,'     Lardner,  as  above, 
and  Saul  to  that  great  work  for  which 


CHAP.  VII.]  ORDAINED    BY    PRESBYTERS.  185 

instituted  ministers  of  ordination.  We  will  only  add  to  what 
has  been  said,  the  testimony  of  the  Rev.  Mr.  Hinds,  of  Ox- 
ford. Ordination,  he  teaches,  was  vested  in  the  church, 
that  is,  with  the  representatives  of  the  church.  These  '  were 
made  formally  to  ordain  the  two  extraordinary  apostles  to  the 
Gentiles,'  and,  'in  the  case  of  the  ordination  of  Paul  and 
Barnabas  at  Antioch,  these  were  presbyters  alone.'1 
Now,  let  any  single  case  of  prelatical  reordination,  similar 
to  this,  be  produced  from  the  scriptures,  and  we  will  give  up 
the  argument.  Till  then,  we  claim  the  undoubted  authority 
of  God's  word  for  presbyterian  ordination,  without  the  aid, 
assistance,  or  authority  of  any  superior  order  whatever. 

1)  Hist,  of  Rise  and  Progress  of  Christ,  vol.  ii.  p.  35. 


24 


CHAPTER  VIII. 


PRESBYTERS  ARE,   BY  DIVINE   RIGHT,    CLOTHED    WITH   THE 

POWER  OF  ORDINATION.    THE  SUBJECT  CONTINUED,  AND 

PROOF  GIVEN,  THAT  THE  ORDINATION  OF  TIMOTHY 

WAS  CONFERRED  BY  TRESBYTERS. 


§  1.     The  passage  in  Tim.  4:  14,  explained,  and  its  manifest 
proof  of  presbyterian  ordination  argued. 

But  we  have  another  example  of  presbyterian  ordination, 
which,  the  more  it  is  examined,  will  be  found  the  more  con- 
clusive and  satisfactory,  and  that  is,  the  ordination  of  Tim- 
othy, recorded  in  1  Tim.  4  :  14.  '  Neglect  not  the  gift  that  is 
in  thee,  which  was  given  thee  by  prophecy,  with  the  laying 
on  of  the  hands  of  the  presbyters.'1  It  would  seem  to  us,  that 
no  possible  language  could  more  unequivocally  testify  to  the 
fact,  that  a  plurality  of  presbyters  ordained  Timothy  to  the 
work  of  the  ministry;  and  that  here,  also,  we  are  most  pos- 
itively taught  that  presbyterian  ordination  is  the  true,  original, 
divine,  and  apostolical  order.  That  Timothy  was  endowed 
with  the  extraordinary  gifts  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  all  parties 
admit.  These,  as  was  usually  the  rase,  were  conferred  by 
the  hand  of  an  apostle,  St.  Paul,  (2  Tim.  1:  6.)  In  thus  en- 
dowing Timothy,  the  apostle  was  guided  by  the  opinion  of 
those  prophetic  men,  who  had  pointed  him  out  as  a  fit  and 
chosen  recipient,  and  foretold  his  entrance  upon  the  ministry, 
and  his  eminence  in  it.  (1  Tim.  1:  Is.)  And  in  confirmation 
of  this  divine  call,  Timothy,  we  are  told,  had  been  publicly 
ordained  to  the  work  of  the  ministry,  by  the  imposition  of  the 
hands  of  a  presbytery,  thai  is.  by  a  plurality  of  presbyters. 
We  have  here,  therefore,  a  description  of  the  ministerial  office, 
which  is  called  a  gift;1    the  remarkable  manner  in  which 

1)  '  Your  gift,  tv  a-u,  being  a  periphrasis  for  your,  the  substantive  being 
employed  for  the  adjective. 


CHAP.  VIII.]    TIMOTHY    ALSO    ORDAINED    BY    PRESBYTERS.       187 

Timothy  had  been  prepared  for  it;  the  eminence  to  which 
he  should  aspire;  the  mode  in  which  he  had  been  solemnly 
inducted  into  the  office  ;  and  the  whole,  is,  therefore,  an  ex- 
hortation to  Timothy  to  discharge  faithfully  and  fully  these 
ministerial  duties.  Such,  to  any  unbiased  mind,  would  be 
the  teaching  of  this  passage.  The  conclusion,  would  also 
be  inevitable,  that,  under  the  immediate  sanction  of  the  in- 
spired apostle,  ordination  was  originally  conferred  by  the 
imposition  of  the  hands  of  presbyters.  And  hence,  as  no 
change  of  order  was  subsequently  made  by  divine  authority, 
it  must  have  been  the  purpose  of  Christ,  that  ordination 
should  always  be  performed  through  the  ministry  of  presby- 
ters. Presbyterian  ordination,  therefore,  is  not  only  valid, 
but  is  the  only  ordination  sanctioned  by  the  word  of  God. 

§   2.     The  objection,  that  the  ordainers    of   Timothy   were 
prelates,  answered. 

But  such  a  conclusion  as  this  never  could  be  admitted  by 
prelatists,  and  it  was,  of  course,  necessary  to  find  some  ob- 
jections by  which  its  force  might  be  obviated.  By  noticing 
these,  and  exposing  their  weakness  and  futility,  we  will  sub- 
stantiate the  view  taken  of  this  passage,  by  the  mass  of  the 
reformed  churches. 

The  earliest  objection  to  this  interpretation  was,  that  those 
engaged  in  this  ordination  were  all  prelates,  and  not  presby- 
ters, and  that  it  is  an  argument,  therefore,  for  prelatical  and  not 
for  presbyterian  ordination.  This  view  was  first  presented  by 
Chrysostom,and  from  him  adopted  by  the  fathers  generally.1 
But  this  interpretation  cannot  possibly  be  admitted.  It  is  a 
contradiction,  and  not  an  explanation,  of  scripture.  It  might 
as  well  be  said,  that  when  Paul  here  speaks  of  Timothy  he 
meant  Titus,  as  that  when  he  names  presbyters  he  intended 
prelates.  No  church  or  commmentator  can  pretend  to  trans- 
late the  Bible,  while  he  exchanges  its  terms  for  words  of  an 
opposite  meaning.  In  this  way  the  Bible  might  be  turned  into 
the  Koran,  and  our  republican  constitution  become  the  basis 
of  a  despotism.  Paul  affirms,  that  Timothy  was  ordained  by 
the  hands  of  presbyters,  while  Chrysostom  avers,  that  '  he 
does  not  here  speak  of  presbyters  at  all,  (neoi  noea^vrFocn,) 
but  of  prelates,  (tisqi  ETuoxonbtv.)2  The  ignorance  of  Paul 
must  thus  be  corrected  by  the  wisdom  of  Chrysostom ;  and 
the  corruptions  and  prelatical  usurpations  of  the  fourth  cen- 

1)    See  Jameson's   Sum   of    the  2)   Comm.  in  loco. 

Episc.  Controv.  pp.  11,  12. 


188  TIMOTHY    WAS    ALSO  [BOOK  I. 

tury,  interpret  for  us  the  truth  and  order  of  apostolic  Chris- 
tianity. Besides,  where  could  so  many  prelates  come  from, 
to  Derbe  or  Lystra,  where  this  ordination  probably  took 
place?1  The  presbytery,  therefore, must  have  been  composed 
of  all  the  presbyters  belonging  to  one  or  other  of  the  places 
mentioned.-  This  was  the  view  advocated  by  Aerius,  and  by 
Jerome,  in  his  epistle  to  Evagrius,  who,  from  this  very  pas- 
sage, infers  that  bishops  and  presbyters  were  the  same.  Am- 
brose also  candidly  admits,  that  'the  writings  of  the  apostle 
do  not,  in  every  point,  answer  the  ordination  now  used  in 
the  church.'3  The  Rhemist  translators  accordingly  render 
it,  'with  imposition  of  the  hands  of  priesthood,'  and  justify 
their  translation  by  the  canon  of  the  ancient  council  of  Car- 
thage, requiring  all  the  priests  to  lay  their  hands  on  the  head 
of  the  priest  taking  orders,  along  with  the  bishop's  hand.4 
Chrysostom  found  that  in  his  day,  prelates  had  confined  the 
power  of  ordination  exclusively  to  their  own  order,  and 
hence  he  was  driven  to  the  profane  stratagem  of  making  the 
Bible  speak  in  accordance  with  that  custom,  though  contrary 
to  common  sense  ;  just  as,  for  the  same  reason,  he  and  others 
endeavored  to  give  to  the  word  bishop  the  sense  of  prelate, 
because  there  was  no  other  word  in  the  scriptures  by  which 
such  an  ollice  could  possibly  be  sustained.  The  word  pres- 
bytery never  can  mean  a  single  prelate,  or  any  number  of 
such  officers ;  and  as  Timothy  was  ordained  by  a  church 
court,  composed  of  presbyters,  and  not  by  any  single  indi- 
vidual or  president,  he  was  presbyterially  and  not  prelatically 
ordained.  Even,  however,  were  we  to  translate  presbytery 
by  '  a  court  of  prelates  or  apostles,'  what  would  be  the  con- 
clusion ?  Evidently  this  —  that  in  apostolic  times,  the  term 
presbyter  was  a  general  title  for  all  ministers  of  the  gospel ; 
and  that  while  the  twelve,  considered  in  reference  to  their 
extraordinary  endowments,  were  called  apostles;  as  ordinary 
ministers,  and  the  exemplars  of  all  future  ministers,  they 
were,  (iiid  were  known  as.  presbyters.  In  order  to  make  this 
point  clear,  these  apostles  are  careful,  when  officiating  at 
ordination,  (supposing  now  that  Paul  did  preside  on  this 
occasion,)  to  do  so  as  presbyters,  and  not  as  apostles ;  as  a 
presbytery,  and  not  as  an  apostolate.     This  act  was  an  ordi- 

1)  It  was  after  Barnabas  and  Saul  would   seem,  no  other  apostolic  man 

had  parted  asunder,  that  Paul  met  with  present,  much  less  a  college  of  apos- 

Timothv,  at  Lystra,  and  circumcised  ties. 

him,  and   resolved   to   take  linn  as  his  2)   Such    is   the  opinion  of  Lord 

companion,  upon   the   good  report  of  Barrington.   Wks.  vol.  ii.  p.  89. 
the  brethren,  (Acts,  15:  39.)    So  that,  3)  In  Ephes.  4. 

when   he  was  ordained,  there  was,  it  4)  See  in  loco. 


CHAP.  VIII.]  ORDAINED    BY    PRESBYTERS.  189 

nary  exercise,  therefore,  of  their  ministerial  functions,  and  not 
peculiar  to  them,  or  to  their  order  as  apostles.  This  subter- 
fuge, then,  to  which  Bellarmine  and  some  modern  prelatists 
have  retreated,  will  not  help  the  cause  of  prelacy  at.  all. 
*  There  was,'  says  archbishop  Potter,  'a  presbytery  or  college 
of  elders,  in  the  place  where  Timothy  was  ordained,  for  it 
was  by  the  imposition  of  their  hands  he  received  his  orders.' l 
Such  also  'is  the  opinion  of  Mr.  Hinds,2  and  of  Dr.  Willet.3 
The  word  presbytery,  here,  cannot  refer  to  prelates,  else,  as 
Whitaker  teaches,  there  would  be  more  than  one  bishop  in 
one  place;4  and  because,  to  make  it  a  council  of  bishops,  is 
to  beg  the  question  in  dispute,  which  .is,  whether  there  was 
any  distinction  between  presbyters  and  bishops  in  scripture.5 
But  of  this,  more  anon. 

§  3.  The  objection,  that  the  word  presbytery  does  not  refer  to 
a  company  of  presbyters,  but  to  the  office,  answered,  and 
Calvin  vindicated, 

Prelatists,  being  driven  from  this' position,  were  led  to  ad- 
vance the  preposterous  idea,  that  the  word  presbytery  does  not 
refer  to  the  individuals,  by  whom  Timothy  was  ordained, 
but  to  the  office  to  which  he  was  introduced.  They,  there- 
fore, translate  the  passage,  '  neglect  not  the  gift  of  presbytery, 
that  is,  the  office  of  priesthood,  which  was  given  thee  by  proph- 
ecy, with,'6&c.  Now,  it  must  be  admitted,  that  the  word  ren- 
dered presbytery,  might  be  translated  in  this  way.  This,  no 
one  will  dispute.  But,  this  being  admitted,  the  question  is, 
whether  the  word,  in  this  place,  can  be  understood  in  this 
sense.  A  word,  simply  and  abstractly,  may  have  a  very  dif- 
ferent meaning  from  the  same  word"  when  conjoined  with 
others;  and  a  word  which  may  have  two  or  more  senses 
singly,  when  found  in  connection  with  others,  must  have  that 
meaning  attached  to  it,  which  will  give  us  a  proper  and  intel- 
gible  sense,  and  not  that  which  will  convert  the  passage  into 
nonsense.  Now,  we  affirm,  that  the  word  presbytery,  in  this 
place,  does  not  mean  the  office  of  presbyter,  but  must  mean 
the  assembly  of  presbyters,  and  in  proof  of  our  assertion  we 
offer  the  following  reasons : 

In  the  first  place,  the  word  ^ea^vieq^v,  presbytery,  does  not 

1)  On  Ch.  Govt.  pp.  105,  67,  267.     2S4,  in  Ayton's   Constit.  of  the  Ch.  p. 

2)  Hist,  of  Rise  and  Progress  of    366. 

Christ,  vol.  ii.  pp.  34,  35.  5)  See  this  objection  handled  by 

3)  Syn.  Pap.  pp.  273,  81.  Dr.  Mason,  Wks.  vol.  iii.  pp.  167-169. 

4)  Praelect.   Controv.   2.   c.  5.   p.  6)  Archbp.  Potter  on   Ch.   Govt. 

p.  267. 


190  TIMOTHY    WAS    ALSO  [BOOK   I. 

properly  refer  to  the  office,  but  to  an  assembly  of  officers. 
The  former  meaning  is  conveyed  by  the  word  ngeor^eiov,  which 
means  rrnmus  seniorum,  the  office  of  presbyler.  No  author- 
ity, therefore,  can  be  found  for  attaching  such  a  sense  to  the 
word  abstractly  considered.1  In  the  second  place,  when  we 
inquire  into  the  meaning  of  the  term  as  used  in  scripture,  we 
find,  that  it  uniformly  means,  an  assembly  of  presbyters. 
The  only  exception  is  in  the  apochryphal  book  of  Susannah, 
5  :  50,  where  some  few  editions  read  nQtoSvieom,  presbyters, 
instead  of  ngeaSfiov,  the  presbyterate,  the  office  being  certainly 
understood.2  Wolfius,  Vitringa,  Koppe,  and  Pfaffius,  al- 
lege, that  the  sense  of  '  a  senate  of  presbyters '  is  the  only  mean- 
ing which  can,  in  all  cases,  answer  to  the  Hebrew  words,  and 
to  the  Jewish  customs.3  In  the  New  Testament,  this  term 
is  used  to  characterize  the  council  of  elders  or  presbyters, 
that  is,  the  senate  or  sanhedrim,  in  Luke,  22 :  26,  and  Acts, 
22 :  5.  To  this  opinion,  Dr.  Bowden  has  been  constrained  to 
give  his  adherence,  allowing,  that  the  term  presbytery  '  signi- 
fies an  ecclesiastical  council.'  4  This  was  also  admitted  by 
bishop  Beveridge,5  who  says, '  St.  Paul  says  Timothy  received 
the  Spirit  by  the  laying  on  of  his  hands,  notwithstanding  the 
presbytery  joined  with  him  in  it.'  We  are  under  the  necessi- 
ty, therefore,  according  to  all  the  rules  of  interpretation,  to 
understand  the  word  in  its  ordinary  meaning,  as  it  was  em- 
ployed by  the  Jews,  in  their  ecclesiastical  usages,  and  as  it 
was  familiar  to  the  apostles,  in  the  passage  before  us.  In 
the  third  place,  this  prelatical  interpretation  is  equally  con- 
trary to  the  opinion  of  the  fathers.  According  to  Suicer,  the 
word  in  the  Greek  fathers,  denotes  an  assembly,  congrega- 
tion, or  college  of  presbyters.6  Ignatius  frequently  uses  the 
word,  and  very  explicitly  defines  it,  saying,  '  what  else  is  the 
presbytery  than  a  sacred  assembly,  the  counsellors  and  asses- 
sors of  the  bishop.'7  Irenaeus,  speaking  of  these  officers, 
says,  they  were  those,  'who,  with  their  succession,  received  a 
certain  charisma  of  trulh.'8  Theodoret  says,  '  he  here  calls 
those  a  presbytery  who  had  received  the  apostolical  grace. 
Thus  did   the  divine  scriptures  call  those  who  were  honored 

1)  See  Stephanus,  Scapula,  Don-  SG,  very  doubtful,  p.  116,  no  easy 
negan, and  all  the  Lexicographers,  in     matter,  p.  117. 

verbo.  Wks.  vol.  ii.  pp.  121,  122. 

2)  Brttschneider  Lex.  in  Nov.  G)  Suicer  Thesaurus  Keel,  ex 
Test,  in  verbo.  Patr.  Groec.  torn.  ii.  p.  824. 

3)  Wolfii  Curse  Phil.  vol.  iv.  p.  7)  Kp.adTrallianosandtoEph.es. 
4G5.  VitringB  de  Syn.  Vet.  p.  597.  See  Usher's  Episc.  and  Presb.  Govt. 
Pfaffius,  1.  c.  Conjd. 

4)  See  Wks.  on  Episc.  vol.  ii.  p.  8)  L.  iv.  c.43,  in  Whitby's  Com- 

ment, in  loco. 


CHAP.    VIII.]  ORDAINED    BY    PRESBYTERS.  191 

in  Israel,  a  senate  (ysyovtiav)  or  presbytery.'1  Chrysostom, 
Theophylact,  CEcumenius,  Sedulius,  and  Primasius,  also 
refer  the  word  to  an  assembly  of  persons.2  Epiphanius  re- 
lates, that  this  term  was  quoted  by  Aerius  in  support  of  pres- 
byterian  ordination.3  While  Jerome,  in  his  commentary  on 
Titus,  brings  this  same  passage  to  prove,  that  bishop  and 
presbyter  are  one  and  the  same.4  Cyprian  uses  this  word 
also,  for  a  consistory  of  presbyters.  5  Cornelius,  bishop  of 
Rome,  employs  the  term  to  signify,  the  concurrence  of  his 
presbyters.  Clemens  Alexandrinus,  and  Origen,  have  been 
quoted  to  the  same  effect.6  The  very  ancient  Syriac  version 
renders  the  words,  'with  the  hands  of  the  presbytery.'  The 
Ethiopic  version,  'with  the  hands  of  the  bishops.'  The 
Arabic,  and  the  Vulgate,  'with  the  hands  of  presbyters.'7 
And  here,  before  passing,  let  me  ask  every  impartial  reader, 
what  we  are  to  think  of  those  defenders  of  the  prelacy,  who 
affirm,  as  Mr.  Palmer  does,  '  that  this  term  was  understood 
by  the  Greek  fathers,  to  mean  bishops,  (that  is,  prelates,)  and 
by  the  Latin  fathers,  to  mean  the  presbyterate ; 8  and  who 
affirm,  as  Mr.  Perceval  unblushingly  does,  that  '  all  the 
commentators  understood  this  place  to  mean,  the  college  of 
apostles.'9 

In  the  fourth  place,  this  interpretation  is  rejected  by  the 
whole  host  of  modern  commentators,  prelatical  and  anti-pre- 
latical,  with  almost  no  exceptions.10  '  Estius  thinks,  the  elder- 
ship of  Ephesus  is  here  meant.'  Bengelius  says,  male  legunt 
nonulli,  tow  ngeofivTsgov,  '  some  badly  interpret  this  of  the  office 
of  a  presbyter.'  u  '  I  cannot,'  says  Dr.  Bloomfield,  '  agree  with 
Benson,  that  the  elders  did  not  confer  this  gift.  They,  it 
should  seem,  contributed  to  confer  it.' 13  '  The  presbytery,  or 
all  the  presbyters  at  Derbe  or  Lystra  .  .  .  laid  their  hands 
on  thee,'  says  Lord  Barrington. 13  '  They,'  that  is,  Timothy 
and  Titus,  'were  ordained  by  imposition    of  the  hands  of 

1)  In  Suicer.  10)  See  Poole's  Synopsis  Crit.  in 

2)  See  in  ibid,  and  Jameson,  as  loco.     Crit.  Sacri.  ibid.     See  Bloom- 
above,  field's  Crit.  Digest  and  N.  T.     Mac- 

3)  Ibid.  knight,  Rosenmuller,  Koppe,  Slade  on 

4)  Ibid.  the  Epistles,  Benson  in  loco,  Dioda- 

5)  Lib.  ii.  Ep.  8,  and  10.  ti's  Annot.,  The  Dutch  Annotations, 

6)  See   Boyse's  Anc.  Episcop.  p.  Poole's   Comment,    Whitby,  &c.  &c. 
246.  See  also  Jordan,  (of  Oxford,)  Review 

7)  See  Walton's  Polyglott  in  loco,  of  Tradition,  p.  80.     Dr.  Hammond  in 

8)  On  the  Church,  vol.  ii.  p.  413.  loco.  Usher's  Episc.  and  Presb.  Govt. 

9)  On  the  Apost.  Success,  pp.  23,  Conjoined,  p.  9. 

24.     This  work  is  one  tissue  of  Jesu-  11)  See  in  Koppe  Comm.  in  loco, 

itical  misstatements,  which,  in  their  12)   Crit.  Digest,  vol.  viii.  p.  256. 

intended    sense,   are    open    untruths.  13)  Wks.  vol.  ii.  p.  89. 

The  author  is  evidently  entirely  igno- 
rant of  the  system  he  opposes. 


192  THE    COMMISSION  [BOOK  I. 

the  presbytery,'  says  Saravia, '  no  less  than  the  others  who 
were  subsequently  set  over  the  church  in  every  city.1  Stil- 
lingfleet  has  also  ably  supported  this  interpretation.2  It  has 
been,  however,  triumphantly  alleged,  by  almost  every  prelati- 
cal  writer  for  the  last  century,3  that  Calvin  gave  to  this  view 
the  weight  of  his  great  authority.  But  this  is  an  entire  mis- 
representation for  propping  up  a  sinking  cause,  and  can  only 
be  paralleled  by  the  attempt  of  these  same  writers  to  make 
Calvin  a  witness  in  favor  of  prelacy.  It  is  true,  that  in  his 
Institutes,  his  earliest  work,  composed  when  only  about 
twenty  years  of  age,  Calvin  did  say,  that,  as  he  then  appre- 
hended the  passage,  the  word  referred,  rather  to  ordination 
itself,  than  to  the  company  of  presbyters. 4  But  in  the  very 
same  passage,  he  manifests  his  doubt,  for  he  introduces  his 
remarks  by  saying,  '  it  is  not  certain.'  5  In  the  same  work, 
Calvin  further  refers  to  this  passage,  as  connected  with  '  the 
introduction  of  true  presbyters  and  ministers  of  the  church 
into  their  office.'  G  But  what  is  most  to  be  observed  is,  that 
in  his  later  writings,  as  in  his  commentary  on  this  passage,  a 
work,  at  least,  as  common  as  his  Institutes,  Calvin  explicitly 
declares,  that '  in  his  judgment,  those  who  think  presbytery  to 
be  a  collective  noun,  put  for  the  college  of  presbyters,  think 
rightly.  7 

In  the  fifth  place,  we  remark,  that  this  interpretation  de- 
stroys the  sense  of  the  passage,  and  must,  therefore,  be 
rejected.  It  impules  to  the  apostle  an  absurdity,  from  which, 
had  prelatists  sufficient  reverence,  they  would  shrink.  For 
in  what  conceivable  sense  can  an  office  be  said  to  have  hands, 
and  yet  it  was  '  by  the  hands  of  the  presbytery,'  that  is,  by 
1  the  office  of  a  presbyter,'  that  Timothy  received  his  gift. 
Moreover,  this  gift  referred  to  the  qualifications  imparted  to 
him  for  this  very  office,  and  thus  we  are  taught,  by  this  inter- 
pretation, that  Timothy  received  the  qualifications  for  the 
office  of  presbyter,  by  the  hands  of  the  office  of  presbyter. 
And  then  this  gift  was  given  by  the  hands  of  an  abstract 

1)  On  the  Priesthood,  p.  116.  cause  if  they  refer  to  the  company  of 

2)  Iren.  p.  275,  &c.  See  also  presbyters,  then  it  would  be  certain 
Goode's  Rule  of  Faith,  vol.  ii.  pp.  84,  that  ordination  was  administered  'by 
85,  Willet  Syn.  Pap.,  p.  273.  more  pastors  than  one,'  but  if  not, '  by 

3)  See  e  g.  Potter  on  Ch.  Govt,  the  act  of  a  single  pastor.'  See  the 
p.  267,  and   Bp.    Onderdonk's  Episc.  passage. 

tested   by   Script.      Sinclair's    Apost.  6)  Instit.  B.  iv.  ch  xix.  $  28. 

Succ,  p.  23.  7)  Comment,  in    1   Tim.  4:    14. 

4)  Inst.  B.  iv.  ch.  iii.  §  16.  '  Presbyterium   qui   hie    collectivum 

5)  It  will  be  at  once  seen  by  a  nomen  esse  putant,  pro  collegio  pres- 
reader,  that  this  uncertainty  refers  to  byterorum  positum,  recte  sentiunt 
the  interpretation  of  these  words,  be-  meo  judice.' 


CHAP.  VIII.]  WAS    ORDAINED    BY    PRESBYTERS.  193 

office,  which,  in  the  nature  of  things,  could  not  give  it  at  all. 
All  sense,  therefore,  must  be  sacrificed  at  the  shrine  of  prela- 
cy; and  in  order  to  do  honor  to  bishops,  we  must  be  satisfied 
to  receive,  on  implicit  faith,  what  cannot  be  brought  within 
the  reach  of  any  intelligible  comprehension. * 

In  the  sixth  and  last  place,  this  interpretation  may  as  well 
be  abandoned,  because,  even  if  admitted,  it  is  as  fatal  to  the 
cause  of  prelacy  as  the  one  for  which  we  contend.  For  on 
this  supposition,  Timothy  was  only  admitted  to  the  order  of 
presbyters,  and  is  thus  unbishoped  of  his  prelatic  dignity ; 
and  since  he  is  here  required  as  such, 'and  on  the  ground  of 
this  presbyterate,  to  ordain  other  presbyters,  (1  Tim.  5 :  22,) 
we  are  led  to  the  very  comfortable  and  orthodox  conclusion, 
that  in  the  apostles'  days,  presbyters  were  the  only  order  of 
permanent  ministers,  and  that  they  alone  ordained  their  suc- 
cessors in  office.  This  conclusion  must  follow,  in  every  view 
of  the  matter,  and  is  forced  from  the  reluctant  consciences  of 
the  most  avowed  advocates  of  prelacy.  Thus  Hadrian  Sara- 
via  says,  '  Timothy,  whom  he  (Paul)  had  ordained  a  presby- 
ter, he  also  calls  a  bishop.'  Again,  he  places  Timothy  and 
Titus  among  'the  first  presbyters  whom  the  apostles  and 
evangelists  ordained.'2  And  if,  as  archbishop  Wake  de- 
clares, '  Timothy  came  at  the  head '  of  those  presbyters  who 
met  Paul  at  Miletus,  (Acts,  20:)  then  it  is  beyond  contro- 
versy, that  he  was  still  in  the  order  of  a  simple  presbyter.3 

Dr.  Chapman,  in  his  Sermons  to  Presbyterians,4  says,  that 
'  by  the  usual  explanation  of  the  passage,  he  is  willing  to 
abide.  It  is  in  strict  accordance  with  the  practice  of  the 
church  for  many  centuries.  Ordination,  with  us,  to  the 
office  of  a  presbyter,  is  always  celebrated  by  a  bishop,  with 
the  concurrence  of  two  or  more  presbyters.'  Now  with  this 
explanation  of  the  passage,  as  thus  certainly  referring  to  the 
ordination  of  a  presbyter,  we  also  are  willing  to  abide.  It 
brings  us  directly  to  our  conclusion,  that  as  Timothy  was 
now  really  ordained  —  and  that,  too,  by  a  presbytery  —  so 
was  he,  of  necessity,  ordained  to  the  office  of  a  presbyter. 
Timothy,  therefore,  was  a  presbyter,  and  not  an  apostle,  and 
he  received  ordination  from  a  presbytery,  and  not  from  a 
prelacy. 

1)  The  word  presbytery  cannot  2)    On   the  Priesthood,  pp.  109, 

be  the  genitive  to  the  word  gift,  be-     116,  137. 

cause  two  other  genitives  intervene.  3)  On  the  Apost.  Fathers,  p.  11, 

bee  Owen  on  Ordination,  p.  44.  §  15. 

4)  P.  234. 

2-5 


194  TIMOTHY    WAS    ALSO  [BOOK  I. 


§  4.      The  objection  that  Paul  alone  ordained   Timothy 
answered;  in  which  2  Tim.  1 :6,  is  explained. 

Another  objection,  however,  is  brought  forward  in  order  to 
raise  a  cloud  of  dust,  through  which  the  discomfited  ranks  of 
the  prelacy  may  effect  a  retreat.  Paul,  it  is  said,  in  another 
place,  expressly  declares,  that  he  ordained  Timothy,  who  was, 
therefore,  a  prelate.  The  place  referred  to  is  2  Tim.  1:6; 
'  wherefore,  I  put  thee  in  remembrance,  that  thou  stir  up  the 
gift  of  God  which  is  in  thee  by  the  putting  on  of  my  hand?.' 
Now  we  have  here  no  less  than  four  most  unwarrantable 
assumptions.  It  is  assumed,  that  the  reference  here  is  to 
ordination,  whereas  it  is  plainly  to  supernatural  gifts,  which 
were  communicable  only  by  an  apostle.  It  is  assumed,  that 
there  is  a  reference  to  the  ordination  related  in  the  first  epistle, 
when  there  is  every  reason  for  a  contrary  opinion.  It  is  as- 
sumed, that  even  if  this  passage  does  refer  to  the  previous 
one,  it  will  militate  against  the  doctrine  of  presbyterian  ordi- 
nation, which  is  there  unequivocally  taught.  It  is  assumed, 
that  Paul  had  any  other  than  presbyterian  ordination  ;  or  ever 
assisted  at  ordination  in  any  other  capacity  than  as  a  pres- 
byter, which  we  think  has  been  undeniably  overthrown. 
Finally,  it  is  assumed  by  some,  that  in  neither  passage  is 
there  any  reference  to  ordination  at  all.  Here,  then,  is  a 
mountain  weight  of  inferences,  all  piled  upon  the  back  of 
a  tortoise  —  which  rests  upon  nihility. 

This  passage,  we  contend,  refers  to  supernatural  gifts,  and 
not  to  ordination.1  1.  Such  is  the  natural  interpretation  of  the 
passage,  which  would  most  readily  suggest  itself  to  every 
attentive  reader.  That  supernatural  gifts  were  at  this  time 
common  in  the  church,  is  on  all  hands  admitted.  That  the 
apostles  alone  were,  at  least  as  a  general  rule,  empowered  to 
communicate  them,  has  also  been  clearly  established.-  That 
in  the  communication  of  these  gifts  the  apostles  employed  the 
ceremony  of  imposition  of  hands,  and  that  they  did  so  as 
individuals,  and  not  in  their  united  oapacity,  is  equally  cer- 
tain.3 This  passage,  therefore,  would  appear  to  be  a  literal 
record  of  the  faet  of  such  a  communication  of  spiritual  gifts 
to  Timothy  by  the  hands  of  Paul.     2.   No  other  reference  of 

1)  See   Lect.  on    Apost.    Succ.  the  Planting  of  Chrisfy,  and  his  Essay 
Lect.  vii.  p.  161.  on    the    Miraculous     Gifts;     Epiph. 

2)  See  Lord   Harrington's   Wks.  Haeres.  21,  Simon. 

passim,  and  vol.  ii.  Essay  ii.  p.  72,  &c. ;  3)   Acts,   19  :  6  ;    Acts,  8:16;    1 

and  vol.  i.  Essay  i. ;  Benson's  Hist,  of  Thess.  1  :  6,  and  2  : 1  ;  1  Cor.  2:4,5. 


195 


CHAP.  VIII.]  ORDAINED    BY    PRESBYTERS. 

the  passage  is  necessary.     Every  word  is  by  this  interpreta- 
tion fully  and  literally  explained.     But  by  applying  it  to  the 
subject  of  Timothy's  ordination,  the  passage  becomes  difficult 
and  obscure.     That   ordination,  as  the   apostle   had  already 
reminded  Timothv,  was  conferred  by  the  hands  of  the  pres- 
bytery, and  not  by  his  hand  ;  and  were  it  here  alluded  to,  we 
might  justly  expect  some  harmonizing  expressions,  especially 
as  there  is  no  reason  to  believe,  that  the  apostle  was  at  Lystra 
or  Derbe  when  the  event  took  place.     And  how  is  it  recon- 
cilable to  good  sense  or  Paul's  humility,  for  him  to  assume 
or  arrogate  to  the  laying  on  of  his  hands,  only,  that  which 
was  due  to  the  laying  on  of  the  hands  of  many  others.  3.  Any 
other  reference  of  the  passage  is  perfectly  gratuitous,  since  in 
no  other  portion  of  the  New  Testament  do  we  read  of  an 
ordination  performed  by  a  single  individual.     4.  This  inter- 
pretation is  required  by  the  language.     The  word  translated 
gift  occurs  sixteen  times,  and  in  eleven  of  these  cases,  it  sig- 
nifies the  gift  of  the   Holy  Spirit,  and  never  once  an  office.1 
For,  in  the  passage  in  1  Tim.  4:14,  the  reference  in  the  term 
gift  is   evidently  to   those   endowments,  in  consequence  ot 
which  the  presbytery  ordained  Timothy,  and  not  to  the  office 
into  which  they  thus  introduced  him.     To  translate  it,  there- 
fore, by  the  word  office,  is  to  set  up  a  private  interpretation 
against  the  undoubted    and  multiplied  usage  of    scripture. 
The  word  rendered  '  stir  up  '  is  evidently  used  as  the  coun- 
terpart to  the  term  gift.     It  indicates  an  internal  quality,  and 
signifies  properly,  to  rouse   sluggishness,  and   to   call  into 
action  some  dormant  faculty.2     It  is  so  employed  by  Sie- 
mens, who  says,  '  let  his  faith,  then,  be  stirred  up  in  us. 

5.  This  interpretation  is  necessary  to  any  intelligible  mean- 
ing. We  can  well  conceive  how  the  apostle  should  exhort 
Timothy  to  stir  up,  to  foster,  and  to  increase  the  gift  of  super- 
natural faith  or  wisdom,4  with  which  he  had  been  endowed  ; 
but  we  cannot  imagine  how  Timothy  would  set  about  the 
business  of  'stirring  up  the  office  of  the  ministry  that  was  in 
him.'  The  presbyterian  view  is  rational,  as  well  as  consist- 
ent ;  the  prelatical  is  absurd  and  contradictory.  6.  The  con- 
text requires,  that  we  should  refer  the  words  to  some  such 
supernatural  gift.     Paul  alludes  to  'the  unfeigned  faith  that 

1)  See   Lord   Barrington's   Wks.    also  the  Septuagint  in  Gen.  45:27; 
vol.  ii.  pp.  87  and  73.  Mac.  13:  7. 

2)  See    Bloomfield's    Crit.   Dig.  4)  Matt.  17:21    20;  1   Cor.    M 
and  Wetstein  in  loco,  with  the  exam-    23,  &c.     See   Whitby,   Comment,  in 
pies.                                                           loco- 

3)  Ep.  to  the  Corinth.  §  27.     See 


196  TIMOTHY    WAS    ALSO  [BOOK    I. 

was  in  Timothy,'  and  being  persuaded  that  he  had  received 
and  possessed  this  gift,  he  therefore  ('wherefore')  put  him  in 
remembra/ice  to  stir  up  this  gift.  He  goes  on  to  say,  '  for 
God  hath  not  given  us  the  spirit  of  fear,  but  of  power,'  &c., 
that  is,  of  undaunted  fortitude  and  courageous  boldness;1 
'be  not  thou,  therefore,  ashamed  of  the  testimony  of  our 
Lord.'  Now  such  a  degree  of  faith,  —  which  was  eminently 
adapted  to  the  condition  in  which  the  first  preachers  of  the 
gospel  were  placed, —  is  expressly  enumerated  among  the 
supernatural  endowments  then  bestowed  by  the  Holy  Spirit, 
and  is  also  shown  to  have  characterized  the  apostles  and 
their  coadjutors,  by  contrasting  their  lives  previously  and  sub- 
sequently to  its  reception.2  7.  Finally,  this  interpretation  is 
sustained  by  eminent  prelatists.  Archbishop  Wake  refers 
the  word  to  the  extraordinary  powers  of  the  Holy  Spirit.3  So 
also  does  Lord  Barrington;4  bishop  Hoadly;5  Mr.  Jordan;6 
Whitby;7  Stillingfleet;8  bishop  Bilson  ;9  and  Mr.  Goode.10 
Dr.  Bloomfield  says, '  the  gift '  must,  as  appears  from  what  fol- 
lows, denote  the  supernatural  gifts  of  the  Spirit  imparted  by 
St.  Paul,  in  setting  him  apart  to  the  ministry.11  The  ancient 
commentators  and  the  earlier  moderns  have  rightly  seen,' 
says  this  same  learned  episcopalian,  '  that  it  must  mean  the 
supernatural  gifts  of  the  Holy  Spirit.'  So  much  for  the  first 
and  second  assumptions  involved  in  the  prelatic  theory. 

But  it  is  further  assumed,  that  if  this  passage  be  made  to 
refer  to  the  one  in  1  Tim.  4:  14,  it  will  nullify  our  inference 
in  favor  of  presbyterian  ordination.  But  how  this  conclusion 
follows,  we  confess  is  to  us  unintelligible.  '  The  meaning  of 
these  words,'  says  Dr.  Chauncy,12  '  compared  with  what  is 
said  upon  the  matter  in  2  Tim.  1 :  6,  may  be  fully  expressed 
in  the  following  paraphrase.'  '  Improve  the  gifts  of  the  Holy 
Ghost,  which  I  imparted  to  you,  in  an  extraordinary  measure, 
according  to  the  prophecies  which  wont  before  concerning 
you,  when  you  was  separated  to  the  work  of  the  ministry,  with 
the  laying  on  of  the  hands  of  the  consistory  of  presbyters.' 
A  similar  harmony  of  the  two  passages  is  given  by  Lord  Bar- 

1)  -ir*tjt*7ia..  See  Rosenmullerand  7)   Comment,  in  loco. 
Henz.  s)    Irenic.  p.  275,  &c. 

2)  1    Cor.  12:7-10;  Lord    Bar-  9)   In    ibid.      See    also     Boyse's 
rington's  Wks.  vol.  ii.  And.  Episc,  p.  247. 

3)  Apost.  Fath.  Prel.  Disc.  §  17,  10)  Div.  Rule  of  Faith  and  Prac- 
p.  32.  tice,  vol.  ii.  p.  123. 

4)  As  above.  11)   Crit.  Digest,  in  loco. 

5)  See  in  Wks.  on   Episc.  vol.  i.  12)  Dud.  Lee.  p.  30,  in  Presb.  Ord. 
p.  146.  Vind.  p.  51. 

G)  Of  Oxford,  Review  of  Tradi- 
tion, p.  81. 


CHAP.  VIII.]  ORDAINED    BY    PRESBYTERS.  197 

rington,  and  others.1  The  two  passages  may  thus  be  both  re- 
ferred to  ordination,  and  yet  be  perfectly  reconciled  with  the 
interpretation  for  which  we  contend.  Besides, '  these  two  pas- 
sages,'says  the  Rev.  T.  Hartwell  Home,2  'of  St.  Paul's  epis- 
tles to  Timothy,  are  of  equal  authority,  and  therefore  prove, 
that  the  presbytery  joined  with  the  apostle  in  the  imposition 
of  hands.'  It  is  hence  evident,  that  the  apostle  would  not 
ordain  Timothy,  even  with  the  assistance  of  Barnabas,  but 
having  erected  a  presbytery,  he  hands  him  over  to  that  body 
for  ordination.3  Presbyters,  therefore,  even  in  this  view,  con- 
curred in  the  ordination  of  Timothy,  and  were  associated  by 
the  apostle  as  copartners  in  the  work.  The  designed  testi- 
mony of  the  apostle,  is  thus  afforded  to  presbyterian  ordina- 
tion. Hence,  as  we  have  seen,  it  has  ever  been  a  rule,  that 
at  least  three  presbyters  should  unite  with  the  bishop  in  lay- 
ing on  hands  in  the  ordination  of  presbyters.  This  rule  is 
distinctly  prescribed  by  the  church  of  England,4  where  there 
is  an  evident  reference  to  this  passage  in  Timothy.5  Hence, 
too,  the  doctrine  stated  by  Mr  Palmer,  as  held  by  Jewell, 
Hooker,  and  Field,  '  that  a  mere  presbyter  might  confer  every 
order  except  the  episcopate ; '  in  other  words,  that  the  apos- 
tolic succession  of  the  presbyters  might  be  continued  by  pres- 
byters, the  episcopate  being  laid  aside  or  lost.6  Besides,  we 
have  already  shown,  that  Paul  and  Barnabas  never  received 
any  christian  ordination  but  that  given  by  presbyters.  And, 
therefore,  if  they  did  unite  in  this  ordination,  it  was  in  their 
ordinary  ministerial  character,  as  presbyters,  and  for  the  pur- 
pose of  communicating  to  Timothy  that  same  presbyterian 
ordination  they  had  themselves  received.  As  to  the  attempt 
to  prove  that  the  prepositions  '  by '  and  '  with,'  here  employ- 
ed, are  intended  to  convey  different  ideas  ;  and  to  teach,  that 
the  ordination  was  conferred  'by'  Paul,  and  that  the  presby- 
ters only  concurred  '  with  '  him  ;  it  is  equally  puerile  and  use- 
less. It  is  puerile,  because  these  terms  are  employed  prom- 
iscuously in  the  New  Testament,7  and  in  the  best  authorities, 
and  both  imply  the  instrumental  or  efficient  cause.s  The 
preposition,  therefore,  translated  '  with,'  expresses  the  manner 

1)  Wks.  vol.  ii.  pp.  88,  89.  6)  Essayson  the  Church, p.  251. 

2)  The  Conf.  of  the    Ch.  ofEng.  7)  1  Tim.  1  :  18;  Acts,  15  :  4, 12; 
to  Apost.  Precept,  p.  11.  and  14  :  27,  12  ;  Acts,  5 :  26  ;    and  17 : 

3)  See  Acts,  14: 23;  and  Acts,  16:  11;  and24:  3;  2  Cor.  7:15;  Titus,2: 
1 ;  and  1  Tim.  4  :  14.  1,5,  &c.&c. 

4)  Ordination  Service   and     Ca-  8)   Can  any  lexicographer  be  pro- 
non,35.  duced  who  denies  that  jutrx,  with  a 

5)  See  Essays  on  the  Church,  p.  genitive,  often  signifies  by,  or  by  means 
251.  of? 


198  TIMOTHY    WAS    ALSO  [BOOK  I. 

in  which  Timothy  was  ordained,  that  is,  by  the  imposition 
of  the  hands  of  the  presbytery.1  Besides,  imposition  of  hands 
never  was  used  in  the  apostolic  or  proximate  ages  to  signify 
mere  assent  or  approbation,  but  some  authoritative  commu- 
nication of  power  or  office.  And  thus  are  prelatists  driven 
to  make  new  Greek  grammars,  and  to  annihilate  the  mean- 
ing of  the  ceremony  in  question,  in  order  to  support  their  as- 
sumptions. But  puerile  as  is  this  theory,  it  is  equally  useless, 
both  on  their  interpretation  and  our  own.  For  if,  as  they  say, 
these  presbyters  were  apostles,  then  they  had  as  good  a  right  as 
Paul  to  impose  hands,  and  as  much  power  to  communicate 
gifts ;  while  on  our  view  of  the  passage,  the  first  preposition, 
whatever  it  means,  refers  to  the  gift,  that  is,  the  supernatural 
endowment ;  and  the  second,  to  the  ordination,  which  is  con- 
sequently referred  to  the  presbyters  alone,  with  no  mention 
whatever  of  the  concurrence  of  the  apostle.  But  in  neither 
case  will  the  interpretation  given  substantiate  prelatical  ordi- 
nation by  a  single  individual,  or  by  prelates  alone  ;  while  it 
does  manifestly  authenticate  the  ordination  of  presbyters. 
And  whether  this  is  done  '•by''  their  hands  or  iivith'1  their 
hands,  is  a  scholastic  nicety  about  which  we  have  little  con- 
cern, and  which  may  be  referred  to  the  same  category  with 
that  of  Dr.  Eck,  the  great  champion  of  Rome,  who  at  once  si- 
lenced Luther,  by  declaring,  that  'the  pope  was  not  universal 
bishop,  but  only  bishop  of  the  universal  church.'  If  Paul  pre- 
sided, and  the  presbyters  united  in  the  act,  then  it  follows, 
either  that  these  presbyters  did  or  did  not  possess  the  power 
of  transmitting  to  Timothy  a  ministerial  investiture  of  office. 
If  they  did,  then,  of  course,  the  power  of  ordination  is  inherent 
in  presbyters.  If  they  did  not,  then  was  their  concurrence,  as 
Mr.  Faber  argues,  '  an  idle  and  inexplicable  mockery,  which, 
under  such  an  aspect,  might  justly  be  pronounced  to  nullify 
the  whole  transaction.'2 

§  5.  The  objection,  that  neither  of  these  passages  refer  to 
ordination,  answered,  and  the  argument  for  the  presbyterial 
ordination  of  Timothy  concluded. 

But  prelatists  will  not  be  worsted.       Conscious,  therefore, 
of  the  weakness  of  these  pleas,  they  have  overwhelmed  all 

1)  See  this  whole  subject  admir-  vol.  ix.  pp.  545and  617  ;  and  Plea  for 
ably  treated  in  Dr.  Mason's  Wks.  vol.  Presbytery,  ed.  2d,  p.  19;  and  Presb. 
iii.  p.  154,  &c.     See  also  Owen  on  Or-     Defended. 

din.  p.  47.     Dr.  Rice  in  Evang.  Mag.  2)   On  the  Albigenses,  p.  554,  on 

the  case  of  Pelagius. 


CHAP.  VIII.]  ORDAINED    BY    PRESBYTERS.  199 

opposition  by  declaring,  that,  after  all,  neither  passage  has  any 
reference  to  ordination  at  all,  but  to  something  else.1  Well ! 
let  this  also  pass,  and  what  then  ?  Why  then,  truly,  we  must 
find  our  authority  for  ordination  in  some  other  quarter  than 
the  Bible,  and  one  theory  is  quite  as  good  as  another,  and 
neither,  by  divine  authority.  Either  ordination  is  not  enjoin- 
ed or  required ;  or  otherwise  we  must  conclude  that  the  only 
ordination  revealed  to  us  in  the  New  Testament,  is  presbyte- 
rian  ordination.  For  if  the  accounts  of  the  ordination  of  Paul 
and  Barnabas,  and  of  Timothy,  are  not  records  of  ordination, 
then  is  there  no  information  as  to  the  form,  or  order,  of  this 
work  in  the  whole  Bible.  But  on  the  other  hand,  if  fasting, 
prayer,  and  imposition  of  hands,  are  the  elements  which  con- 
stitute ordination,  and  if  these  are  combined  in  no  other  ec- 
clesiastical act  connected  with  the  ministry,  then  were  these 
occurrences  both  cases  of  ordination.  We  have  in  the  New 
Testament,  other  statements  which  clearly  imply  the  existence 
of  some  form  or  order  of  ordination ;  but  in  no  other  passages 
than  these,  have  we  any  examples  given,  of  what  that  form  and 
order  actually  is.  Now  on  the  supposition  that  Christ  and 
his  apostles  had  designed  that  there  should  be  three  orders  in 
the  ministry  of  the  church,  with  distinct  and  different  powers 
and  forms  of  consecration,  as  in  the  theory  of  the  prelacy,  we 
cannot  but  think  there  would  have  been  preserved  to  us  for- 
mal directions  as  to  each  of  these  orders  ;  so  that  by  one  form 
and  order  prelates  should  be  consecrated  ;  by  another,  presby- 
ters ;  and  by  a  third,  deacons.  And  the  very  fact,  that  in  the 
New  Testament  we  either  find  no  such  models,  or  only  those 
before  us,  and,  therefore,  only  one  form  or  order  of  ordination, 
and  that  strictly  presbyterian,  irresistibly  forces  upon  us  the 
conclusion,  that  there  was  in  the  first  age  of  the  church,  and 
as  constituted  by  the  apostles,  but  one  order  of  ministers,  to 
wit,  presbyters,  and  but  one  mode  of  ordination,  that  is,  the 
presbyterian. 

This  inference  follows,  whether  we  regard  these  passages 
as  distinct  or  as  referable  to  the  same  occasion.  In  the  former 
case,  the  inference  is  plain.  In  the  latter  case,  it  is  equally 
clear  that  the  power  of  transmitting  the  ministerial  office  re- 
sides in  presbyters,  since  the  apostle  is,  in  this  view,  made  to 
approve  of  their  independent  exercise  of  this  power,  or  at  least 
to  associate  presbyters  with  himself,  as  his  successors  in  the 
ministry,  in  the  solemn  act. 

1)  Bishop   Onderdonk,  Wks.    on  Episcop.  pp.  426,427. 


CHAPTER   IX. 


PRESBYTERS  ARE  CLOTHED  WITH  THE  POWER  OF  ORDINA- 
TION. THE  SUBJECT  CONTINUED. 


§  1.   The  ordinations  referred  to  in  Acts,  14:  23,  were 
presbyterial. 

A  third  instance  of  presbyterial  ordination  may  be  found 
in  the  record,  in  Acts,  14:  23,  where  it  is  said  of  Paul  and 
Barnabas,  '  and  when  they  had  ordained  them  elders  in  every 
church,  and  had  prayed,  with  fasting,  they  commended  them 
to  the  Lord,  on  whom  they  believed.'  Now  this  Barnabas, 
who  was  a  candidate  with  Matthias,  for  the  vacant  apostle- 
ship,  (Acts,  1 :  23,)  was  no  more  than  an  ordinary  minister. 
If  the  opinion  of  several  of  the  ancient  fathers,  as  Clement, 
Eusebius,  Epiphanius,  and  Dorotheus  is  to  be  held,  then  he 
was  one  of  the  seventy  disciples,  who  were,  as  we  have  seen, 
and  as  Hooker  expressly  calls  them,  presbyters. l  Or,  if  the 
opinion  is  to  be  entertained,  which  was  urged  by  the  venera- 
ble Bede,  that  his  conversion  is  related  in  the  fourth  chapter 
of  the  book  of  Acts,  then  Barnabas  was  first  ordained  to  the 
ministry  by  the  presbyters  of  Antioch,  as  already  noticed. 
In  either  case,  he  could  be  only  a  presbyter,  or  ordinary  min- 
ister, however  extraordinarily  endowed.  And  yet  did  the 
apostle  associate  him  with  him  in  the  frequent  ordination  of 
other  presbyters,  in  the  various  churches,  which  they  visited 
together.  Indeed,  it  would  seem  evident,  that,  in  the  per- 
formance of  this  ministerial  rite,  the  apostle  acted  as  an 
exemplar  to  the  church  in  all  future  time,  and  that,  for  this 
end,  he  submitted,  to  be  himself  formally  set  apart  by  pres- 
byters, as  a  presbyter,  or  minister,  (although,  already  an  apos- 
tle by  the  will  of  Christ,)  that,  together  with  Barnabas,  he 
might  institute  the  order  of  presbyters  as  the  standing  min- 

1 )  See  in  Du  Pin,  Ecc.  Hist.  vol.  i.  p.  6. 


CHAP.  IX.]    OTHER  CASES  OF  PRESBYTERIAN  ORDINATION.         201 

istry  of  the  church.  That  this  was  the  case,  would  appear 
from  the  fact,  that  Paul  generally  had  two  or  more  ministers 
in  company  with  him,  so  that  they  could  at  any  time  act  as 
a  presbytery. 1 

But  did  not,  it  is  asked,  the  apostles  alone,  to  the  exclusion 
of  the  elders,  ordain  the  deacons,  as  recorded  in  the  sixth 
chapter  of  Acts  ?  To  this  we  reply,  that  at  this  time  there 
had  not  been  any  other  ministers,  or  presbyters,  set  apart,  by 
whom  this  duty  could  have  been  discharged.  The  apostles 
then  took  the  first  step  towards  introducing  the  regular  organ- 
ized form  of  the  government  of  the  church,  and  the  question 
is,  whether  in  that  established  form  there  is  any  recognition 
of  an  order  of  ordainers  in  distinction  from  an  order  of 
preachers.  But,  even  in  thus  setting  apart  the  order  of  dea- 
cons, and  while  thus  showing,  that  in  conferring  ordination, 
the  people  could  not,  properly,  unite,  the  apostles,  neverthe- 
less, acted  as  presbyters,  and  not  as  prelates.  For  they  were 
all  together.  They  constituted  a  presbytery.  They  took 
common  oversight  of  the  church  of  Jerusalem.  And  it  was 
as  a  presbytery  they  exercised  the  power  of  ordination.2 

§  2.  The  ordinations  conferred  by  Timothy  and  Titus  were 
presbyterial,  nor  is  there  provision  made,  in  the  epistles 
addressed  to  them,  for  any  other  than  presbyterial  ordi- 
nation. 

The  same  conclusion  must  be  drawn,  also,  from  the 
recorded  examples  of  Timothy  and  Titus.  These  individu- 
als were  specially  deputed  by  the  apostle,  to  visit  the  churches, 
to  see  that  every  thing  was  carried  on  in  an  orderly  manner, 
and  to  ordain  presbyters  in  every  city.  '  For  this  cause,'  says 
Paul  to  Titus,  (1 :  5,)  '  left  I  thee  in  Crete,  that  thou  shouldest 
set  in  order  the  things  that  are  wanting,  and  ordain  elders  (or 
presbyters)  in  every  city,  as  I  had  appointed  thee.'  So,  also, 
Timothy  is  enjoined  'to  lav  hands,  suddenly,  on  no  man.' 
1  Tim.  5:  22. 

It  is  not  to  be  denied,  that  Timothy  and  Titus  were  depu- 
ted by  the  apostle,  on  an  extraordinary  embassy,  arising  out 
of  the  condition  and  circumstances  of  the  infant  church. 
But  they  performed  this  mission  in  that  ministerial  character 
which  they  already  possessed.  Titus  was  left  in  Crete,  just 
as  he  was,  without  any  additional  consecration  ;  and  Timo- 

1)  See  1  Thess.  1:  l,and  2  Thess.  2)  See  Boyse's  Anct.  Episcop.  p. 

1:1;    See  Pierce's    Vind.  of    Presb.    231. 
Ord.  part  ii.  p.  79. 

26 


202  THE    ORDINATIONS    BY    TIMOTHY  [BOOK  I. 

thy  was  sent  to  Ephesus  with  no  other  ordination,  that  we 
know  of,  lhan  that  which  he  had  received  from  the  hands  of 
the  presbytery.  That  they  were  neither  of  them  prelates,  we 
shall  afterwards  show,  by  a  refutation  of  the  grounds  on 
which  such  a  pretension  has  been  based.  We  may,  how- 
ever, be  permitted  now  to  state,  that  they  were  both  regarded, 
even  subsequently  to  this  mission,  as  evangelists.  This  must 
appear  evident  to  any  one  who  will  consider  that  they  were 
both  required  to  be  in  perpetual  motion,  and  were  not  per- 
mitted to  remain  fixed  in  any  one  place,  as  we  shall  have  oc- 
casion to  show.1  They  accompanied  the  apostles  on  their 
journeys,  and  assisted  them  by  preaching,  visiting,  and  help- 
ing to  settle  officers  in  the  churches, 3  and  had  equal  authority 
in  different  churches,  as  in  Corinlh  and  Thessalonica.3  Tim- 
othy, we  know,  is  explicitly  denominated  an  evangelist, 
(2  Tim.  4:  5,)  and  Titus  may,  therefore,  quoad  hoc,  receive 
the  same  title,  as  he  is  characterized  by  the  same  duties, 
(2  Cor.  8:  23.)  Such  is  the  opinion  of  Dr.  Willet,4  and  of 
Stillingfleet,5  who  says,  'and  such  were  Timothy  and  Titus, 
notwithstanding  all  the  opposition  made  against  it,  as  will 
appear  to  any  one  who  will  take  an  impartial  survey  of  the 
arguments  on  both  sides;'  of  the  Jesuit  Salmero;6  of  Mr. 
Jordan;7  of  Mr.  Thorndike;8  and  of  Saravia,  who  says,  they 
were  'of  the  same  rank  with  Mark,  who,  it  is  well  known, 
was  inferior  to  Barnabas,  being  his  follower,  and  as  it  were, 
his  disciple.9  But,  if  Timothy  and  Titus  were  evangelists, 
then  they  were  presbyters,  since  evangelists  were  only  pres- 
byters, to  whom,  when  they  'had  no  prospect  of  returning  to 
any  place,  the  apostles  gave  a  commission  to  ordain  minis- 
ters.' 10  They  were  denominated  evangelists,  not  from  their 
ministerial  order,  but  from  their  ministerial  work,  which  is 
thus  described  by  Eusebius.  '  These  having  merely  laid  the 
foundations  of  the  faith,  and  ordained  other  pastors,  (of 
course,  implying  that  they  were  themselves  of  the  pastoral  or 
presbyterial  order,)  committed  to  them  the  cultivation  of  the 
churches  newly  planted ;  while  they,  themselves,  supported 
by  the  grace  and  cooperation  of  God,  proceeded  to  other 

1)  See  Jus  Div.  Min.  p.  08,  2d  -11   Syn.  Pap.  p.  236. 
part,  and     Prynne's    Unbishoping  of  5)  Irea.p  368. 

Timothy.  G)  Disput.  i.  on  Tim.  in  Plea  for 

2)  See  Acts,  17:  14,  and  10,22;     Presb.p.  231. 

1   Thess.  3:  L2 :    2   Cor.  2:  12;    Gal.  7)   Rev.  of  Trad'n,  pp.  80,  81. 

2:  1;   2   Cor.  5:  G;    1  Tim.  1  :  3;  Ti-  S)  Prim.  Govt.  pp.  37-  39. 

tus  1  :  5.  9J   On  Priesthood,  p.  80. 

3)  1    Cor.  4:  17;  1   Thess.  3:  2;  10)  Archbishop     Potter      on    Ch. 
1    Cor.  16  :  10  ;  and  Peirce's    Vind.  of  Govt.  p.  91. 

Presb.  Ord.  part  ii.  p.  49. 


CHAP.  IX.]  AND    TITUS    WERE    PRESBYTERIAN.  203 

countries  and  nations.  For,  even  then,  many  astonishing 
miracles  of  the  divine  Spirit  were  wrought  by  them.'  l  The 
work  of  an  evangelist,  as  such,  was  thus  altogether  extraor- 
dinary and  temporary;  but,  in  his  ordinary  character  and 
ministerial  standing,  he  was  no  more  than  a  pastor,  or  pres- 
byter. The  evangelists  were  comites  et  vicarii  aposiolorum, 
vice-apostles,  who,  like  them,  had  curam  vicariam  omnium 
ecclesiarum,  the  vicarious  charge  of  all  the  churches ;  and 
who,  as  Ambrose  says,  did  evangelizare  sine  cathedra,\hzX  is, 
preach  the  gospel  without  any  special  charge.2 

These  evangelists,  then,  were  extraordinarily  endowed  like 
the  apostles,  though  in  an  inferior  degree,  and  by  the  imposi- 
tion of  their  hands.3  They  acted  '  not  as  fixed  ministers.'  4 
'  It  must  be  granted,'  says  Thorndike,  '  that  Timothy,  as  an 
evangelist,  is  no  governor  of  churches.'  5  Evangelists,  there- 
fore, could  not  have  been  prelates,  for  it  is  an  essential  feature 
in  the  character  of  a  prelate,  that  he  is  set  over  a  church 
already  existing,  and  requiring  an  overseer  to  rule  its  various 
elders  and  deacons ;  whereas,  these  evangelists  went  forth 
among  the  heathen  to  found  infant  churches,  and,  having 
ordained  pastors  over  them,  to  go  onto  other  regions.0  Such, 
undoubtedly,  was  the  opinion  of  Eusebius,  and  such  is  the 
unavoidable  dictate  of  common  sense.  These  evangelists 
were  still  subject  to  the  apostles,  who  retained  '  the  care  of  the 
churches  in  their  own  hands.'  7  Of  course,  they  could  not  be 
apostles,  nor,  in  any  proper  sense,  successors  of  the  apostles, 
since  they  labored  with  them  and  under  them,  and  possessed 
no  independent  or  apostolic  power  over  the  churches.  They 
'came  short  of  the  apostles,'  says  Thorndike, s  'and  of  the 
measure  and  kind  of  those  graces  of  miracles,  language,  and 
the  like,  that  make  an  apostle.'  '  These,  then,'  says  Saravia, 
1  were  the  evangelists,  and  inferior  to  the  twelve  apostles  ; 
being  assigned  as  deputies  to  commanders-in-chief,  to  act 
in  their  stead,  with  like  authority.'9 

It  is  truly  pitiful  to  find  christian  men,  in  order  to  support 

1)  Hist.  Eccles.  lib.iii.  c.37.  T.  on  Eph.  4:  11  ;  Dr.    Hammond's 

2)  See  Jus.  Div.  Min.  Evang.  p.     Dissert.  3,  c.  6. 

68,  part  ii.     See  the  same  view  of  this  3)  Thorndike,  pp.  38,  39. 

office  given  by  Saravia  on  the  Priest-  4)  Stillingfleet. 

hood,    pp.    65,  67,   77—79,    83,    111  ;  5)  Ibid,  p.  40. 

Thorndike's  Prim.  Govt,  of  the  Ch.  pp.  6)  Essays  on  the  Ch.  p.  252. 

37—40;     Essays     on    the      Ch.    p.  7)  Potter  on  Ch.  Govt.  p.  111. 

252  ;  Sinclair's  Vind.  of  the  Ap.  Succ.  8)  Ibid,  p.  39. 

Lond.  1839,  p.  20;  Dr.   Pusey's    Ch.  9)  Ibid,  p.  78.     The  word  apostle, 

the  Converter  of  the  Heathen,  Lond.  in  2  Cor.  8:  23,  24,  is  used  in  its  general 

1839,  Serm.  II.  p.  8  ;  Bloomfield's  N.  sense  of  messenger,  and  does  not  refer 

to  Titus. 


204  THE    ORDINATIONS    BY    TIMOTHY  [BOOK     I 

this  prelatical  hypothesis,  warping  and  twisting  scripture,  or 
rather  making  it.  Thus  we  are  gravely  told,  that  in  2  Cor. 
8 :  23,  24,  where  the  apostle  speaks  of  '  our  brethren  as  the 
messengers  of  the  churches,'  he  intended  to  say  '  the  apos- 
tles,' as  if  every  church  had  as  many  apostles  as  they  chose  ; 
and  that,  whereas  he  speaks  of  brethren  distinct  from  his 
1  fellow-helper  Titus,'  he  meant  to  refer  to  Luke  and  Titus, 
and  to  make  apostles  of  these  two.1  And  yet  Saravia  refuses 
to  '  reckon  Mark  and  Luke '  even  '  among  the  seventy  evan- 
gelists, because  they  were  called  to  the  ministry  by  man.''  a 
Tertullian,  too,  expressly  declares,  that  Like  was  not  an 
apostle,  but  an  apostolic  man ;  not  a  master,  but  a  disciple, 
and  consequently  less  than  a  master.' 3  Papias  also  makes 
Mark  a  follower  of  Peter  only  ;4  and  it  is  well  known,  adds 
Saravia,  that  Mark  was  inferior  to  Barnabas,  being  his 
follower,  and,  as  it  were,  disciple,  and  so  of  the  same  rank 
with  Titus  and  Timotheus,  that  is,  simple  evangelists.5  Final- 
ly, Saravia  enumerates  among '  the  presbyters  whom  the  apos- 
tles and  evangelists  ordained,  John,  Mark,  Titus,  Luke,  Tim- 
othy, Demas,  Silvanus,'  who  'were  made  ministers  of  the 
gospel  by  the  hands  of  the  presbytery.'6  Besides,  even  were 
we  to  rank  Timothy  and  Titus  with  the  apostles,  we 
should  do  so  only  because  of  their  extraordinary  endow- 
ments, and  consequent  duties.  But  these  were  super- 
added to  their  ordinary  ministerial  character,  and  did  not 
make  or  constitute  them  ministers.  They  characterized  them 
as  evangelists.  It  follows,  therefore,  that  whatever  superiority 
they  enjoyed  in  consequence  of  these  gifts,  and  this  peculiar 
office,  was  wholly  personal,  and  not  ministerial.  It  could  not 
be  transferred  to  any  who  were  not  in  like  manner  endowed. 
It  could  not,  therefore,  constitute  the  distinction  of  a  perma- 
nent order  of  ministers  in  the  church,  but  must  have  termina- 
ted with  the  cessation  of  these  gifts.  And  thus  we  might 
even  suppose,  that,  as  evangelists,  Timothy  and  Titus  had  a 
superior  power  to  govern  and  ordain,  and  yet  that  this  power, 
in  iis  ordinary  degree,  belonged  then,  as  it  does  now,  to  all 
presbyters.  The  apostles  were  superior  to  Timothy  and 
Titus,  and  gave  them  only  a  part  of  their  power  and  authority; 
but  who  will  say  they  were  a  distinct  and  superior  order  ?  On 
the  contrary,  as  we  have  seen,  they  were,  in  their  ordinary 
standing,  presbyters,  and  acted  as  such,  and  so,  therefore,  were 

1 )  Oxford  Tracts,  vol.  i.  p.  230.  4)  Euseb.  Eccl.  Hist.  iii. 

2)  On  the  Priesthood,  p.  79.  5)  Ihid,  pp.  80,  81. 

3)  In  his  4th  Book  ag't  Marcion,  6)  Ibid,  p.  116. 
in  ib. 


CHAP.  IX.]  AND    TITUS    WERE  PRESBYTERIAN.  205 

Timothy  and  Titus.1  And,  as  if  to  leave  no  doubt  on  this 
matter,  we  find,  that  when  Timothy  is  joined  with  the  apos- 
tles in  any  epistle,  St.  Paul  appropriates  the  title  of  apostle  to 
himself,  and  never  applies  it  to  him.  '  Paul,  an  apostle  of 
Jesus  Christ, by  the  will  of  God,  and  Timothy,  our  brother  !  ' a 
It  follows,  then,  that  these  evangelists  were  so  called  from 
their  personal  qualifications  and  duties,  and  not  from  their 
ministerial  order,  '  which  is  as  much  as  to  say,  in  English,  that 
the  gift  of  an  evangelist  may  fall  upon  any  rank  of  ordinary 
minister.'  3  It  is  thus  plain,  that,  in  order,  they  were  presby- 
ters. They  are  so  arranged  in  the  apostolic  classification,  in 
Eph.  4:  11.  Christ,  says  Paul,  gave  first  apostles  ;  secondly, 
prophets,  (whom  we  have  seen  were  presbyters,)  and  evan- 
gelists.' But  prophets  and  evangelists  are  identified  by  arch- 
bishop Potter  as  one  and  the  same  order,  differently  endowed 
and  employed.4  Saravia  labors  to  prove  that  they  were  of  the 
number  of  the  seventy,  who  are  generally  ranked  by  prelatists 
in  the  order  of  presbyters.5  'Evangelists,'  says  Hooker,  'were 
presbyters  of  principal  sufficiency,'  and  only  different  from  other 
presbyters  '  in  not  being  settled  in  some  charge.' 5  Dr.  Ham- 
mond ranks  them  below  presbyters,  and  therefore  not  among 
prelates."  Thorndike  asserts,  that '  he  (Timothy)  was  ordained 
deacon  by  the  church  at  Ephesus,  to  give  attendance  on  St. 
Paul  in  his  travels,  for  which  purpose  his  personal  grace  of 
evangelist  was  opportune.'  Such,  also, is  the  opinion  of  Mr. 
Sinclair.8  This,  also,  was  the  opinion  of  Ignatius,  who 
expressly  makes  Timothy  the  deacon  of  Paul,  meaning 
thereby  that  he  was  such  '  as  ministered  a  pure  and  blameless 
ministry.' 9  Some  of  these  opinions,  it  must  be  allowed,  are  very 
extravagant  and  groundless,  but  they  very  clearly  prove  that 
evangelists  could  not  have  been  prelates,  but  that  they  must 
have  been,  in  general,  ministers  of  the  word,  or  presbyters. 
At  all  events,  it  is  demonstrable  that  they  were  not  more  than 
presbyters,  nor  superior  to  them  in  their  order  and  rank  as 
ordinary  ministers  of  Jesus  Christ.  Pope  Pius,  it  is  certain, 
has  expressly  reckoned  Timothy  and  Mark  with  the  presby- 
ters educated  by  the  apostles.10 

1)  See    Pierce's  Vind.  of  Presb.  6)  Eccl.  Pol.  b.  v.  §  78.  vol.iii.pp. 
Ord.  part  ii.  p.  28,  &c.  390,  391.  Hanbury's  ed. 

2)  See  2  Cor.  1:1;  1  Cor.  1:1;  7)  Dissert.  3,  c.  6,  in  Baxter  on 
Col.  1:1.  Episc.p.  91. 

3)  Thorndike,  p.   39.      See   this  8)  Asabove.p.  175;  On  the  Apost. 
also  argued  by  the  Episcopal  author  Succ.  p.  20. 

to  whom  he  replies  in  Boyse's  Anct.  9)  Ep.  to  the  Trallians. 

Episc.  p.  299.  10}  Biblioth.  Patr.  torn.  iii.  p.  15  ; 

4)  On  Ch.  Govt.  pp.  92-94.  in  Baxter  on  Episc.  p.  105. 

5)  On  the   Priesthood,  ch.  iv.  p. 
77,  &c. 


206  THE    ORDINATIONS    BY    TIMOTHY  [BOOK    I. 

Timothy  and  Titus  were  thus  evangelists,  and  being,  as 
such,  of  the  ordinary  ministerial  rank,  were  presbyters.     And 
thus  are  they  called  '  the  two  presbyters '  to  whom  were  given 
'the  ministerial  epistles'  in  a  late  prelatical  work.1      And  the 
author  of  the    commentary    on    1    Timothy,   unequivocally 
affirms,  that  Timothy  'was  ordained  a  presbyter,  but,  inas- 
much as  he  had  no  other  above  him,  he  was  a  bishop.'2    Tim- 
othy and  Titus,  then,  while  presbyters,  were  explicitly  inves- 
ted with  the  power  of  ordination.     This  power  they  doubtless 
exercised  not  singly,  but  in  association  with  others,  and  when 
acting  as  members  of  some  local  presbytery.     Paul  himself,  so 
far  as  we  know,  never  ordained  alone,  but  always  in  connection 
with  others,  and  we  can  hardly  think  they  would  transcend  the 
power  assumed  by  the   apostle  himself.     If  any  affirm  that 
they  did  ordain  singly,  let  them  prove  and  not  merely  assert 
it.     They  do  indeed  tell  us,  that  all  Paul's  directions  to  them 
are  given  to  them  personally,  (thou,  thee?  &zc.)  and  that  they 
alone  acted  on  them.     But  this  is  a  weak  and  foolish  plea, 
since  Paul  could  not  instruct  them  in  any  other  manner,  and 
since  the  same  language  applies  to  the  duty  of  preaching, 
(2  Tim.  4:  1,  2,)  and  to  other  matter?,  which  most  certainly 
were   to  be  attended  to  by  others  equally  with  themselves. 
This  is  also  a  familiar  mode  of  scriptural  address.     Thus, 
when  Christ  delivers  to  Peter,  as  one  of  the  whole  college  of 
apostles,    his   solemn   charges   and   glorious     promises,    he 
addresses  him  personally.4      The  plain  truth  is,  that  they,  act- 
ing by  the  authority  of  the  apostle,  were  to  see  that  the  work 
was  rightly  and  effectually  done ;  but  there  is  nothing  to  war- 
rant the  conclusion  that  they  alone  were  to  exercise  a  power 
and  liberty  greater  than  that  assumed  by  the  apostle  himself. 
There  is  enough  to  show  that  the  contrary  was  the  case.  For 
one  part  of  their  charge  was,  to  '  lay  hands  suddenly  on  no 
man,  neither  be  partaker  of  other  men's  sins.'     Now  this  lan- 
guage incontrovertibly  and  necessarily  implies,  that,  in  the  act 
of  ordination.  Timothy  should  not  act  alone,  but  should  be 
assisted  by  others,  for  how  else  could  he,  in  this  act,  be  a  '  par- 
taker   of  other  men's  sins.'      It    implies  further,    that  these 
'other  men,'   the  presbyters  associated  with    Timothy,  might 
in  any  given  ea-e  desire  the  ordination  of  some  unqualified 

1)  The     Churchman's    Monthly     App.  Col.    295,   in    Goode's    Rule   of 
Rev.  Feb.  1841,  p  60.     'No  express     Faith,  ii.  p.  87. 

injunctions      are      t^iven      respecting  3)   Oxf.  Tracts,  vol.  i.  pp.  230, 163, 

them   (the    sacraments)   to   am   two  159,  160. 

presbyters  in  the  ministerial  epistles.'  4)  John,  21:    15;    Matt.  21:19; 

2)  Inter    Ambros.    Op.    torn.  ii.  See  Peirce's  Presb.  Ord.  Proved  Reg- 

ular. Lond.  1716,  p.  36. 


CHAP.  IX.]  AND    TITUS    WERE    PRESBYTERIAN.  207 

individual,  and,  in  opposition  to  Timothy's  better  judgment, 
insist  on  introducing  him  into  the  ministry.  But  in  such  a 
case,  what  is  Timothy  to  do?  Is  he  authorized  to  supersede 
their  rightful  authority,  or  to  annul  their  proceedings,  or  to  set 
himself  up  in  lordly  superiority,  as  the  sole  ordainer?  By 
no  means.  He  is  to  protest  against  sueh  a  proceeding.  He 
is  to  endeavor  to  prevent  the  consummation  of  their  evil  pur- 
pose. But  if  they  will  proceed,  he  is  not  to  unite  in  the  ordi- 
nation, and  in  this  way  avoid  being  a  '  partaker  of  other  men's 
sins.'  The  hypothetical  sin.  evidently,  is  the  actual  ordina- 
tion of  such  an  unworthy  subject,  and  the  avoiding  of  it  by 
Timothy,  is  his  refusal  to  cooperate  in  the  transaction.  These 
words  plainly  confirm  our  previous  conclusions,  and  prove 
that  Timothy  was  to  act  with  the  other  presbyters,  not  as  a 
prelate,  but  as  a  coordinate  member  of  the  same  presbytery.1 
'  The  rule  of  ordinations  is,'  says  Thorndike,  '  here  directed 
to  Timothy  alone  ;  yet  we  have  no  cause  to  believe  that  it 
was  practised  by  him  otherwise  than  according  to  the  form 
aforesaid,   joining   with  him    the    presbyters    in    imposition 

of  hands,  as  was  practised  by  the  apostles Their  course 

of  proceeding  must  be  measured  by  that  which  we  know  oth- 
erwise,0...  that  in  the  primitive  times  of  the  church,  even 
under  the  apostles,  matters  of  censure  and  ordination  both 
were  wont  to  pass  by  the  presbyters.'  3  And  to  this  very 
injunction  of  the  apostle,  docs  this  prelatic  writer  trace  the 
canon  which  requires  the  association  of  presbyters,  in  the 
imposition  of  hands,  and  the  ratification  of  this  canon  in  the 
ordinal  and  the  canons  oi  the  English  church.4  The  mention 
oi'hcuhh.'  here,  may  also  lead  to  the  same  view  o(  the  pas- 
sage, for  as  it  has  been  customary  to  lay  only  the  right  hand 
upon  the  head  of  the  consecrated  person,  especially  in  the 
case  of  the  presiding  moderator,  the  plural  number  may  be 
supposed  to  indicate  the  plurality  of  the  officiating  ministers. 
We  have  thus  argued  on  the  supposition  that  these  words 
refer  to  Timothy  personally.  This,  however,  may  be  most 
safely  disputed,  and  that  on  the  very  best  grounds.  This 
epistle  is  not  a  private  epistle  to  Timothy,  but  an  inspired, 
canonical  epistle,  addressed  to  the  whole  church  in  all  ages. 
Its  directions  were  adapted  to  the  condition  of  that  church,  as 
it  was  designed  to  be  modelled.  We  must,  therefore,  look  in 
it  for  a  full  view  of  those  orders  which  were  to  be  instituted 

1)  See  Neandefs  Hist,  of  Plant'g  3)  Ibid,  p,  1S8. 

of  Chr.  Rel.  vol.  ii.  p.  1S1.  4)   Concil.  Carth.  Labhe,  torn.  li. 

2)  Prim.  Govt.  p.  190.     See  also     p.  1199.  Canon  35. 
p.  164. 


208  THE    ORDINATIONS    EY    TIMOTHY  [nOOK  I. 

in  the  churches.  Otherwise  we  must  conclude,  that  this  epis- 
tle was  not  canonical,  nor  a  part  of  the  inspired  scriptures, 
which  were  to  continue  to  be  the  rule  of  our  faith  and  prac- 
tice. But  we  find  no  other  orders  described  or  enjoined,  or 
in  any  way  provided  for  in  these  epistles,  except  the  order  of 
deacons  and  the  order  of  presbyter-bishops.  These  words, 
'  lay  hands,  &c,'  must  thus,  after  all,  be  understood  to  refer  to 
presbyter-bishops,  and  not  to  Timothy  alone,  and  to  consti- 
tute a  universal  canon,  and  not  merely  a  special  advice. 
This  will  be  evident  by  looking  at  the  context,  which  all  relates 
to  these  officers,  with  deacons,  and  to  their  qualifications  and 
duties,  (see  v.  17,  and  eh.  3  and  5.)  And  that  this  is  no  pri- 
vate interpretation,  but  an  approved  prelatical  sense  of  the  pas- 
sage, will  appear  from  the  following  extract  from  the  decre- 
tals of  Pope  Gregory  VII,  A.  D.  1074.  After  showing  that 
the  apostle  includes  presbyters  under  the  name  of  bishop,  and, 
as  he  thinks,  that  of  bishop  under  the  name  of  presbyter,  he 
quotes  4  :  14,  referring  to  the  presbytery,  and  then  adds, 
'  to  which,  in  what  follows,  he  immediately  says,  lay  hands 
suddenly  on  no  man,  &c.,  which  is  properly  the  duty  of  bish- 
ops, because  he  calls  those  bishops  whom  he  had  termed  the 
presbytery.'  He  then  justifies  his  opinion  by  that  of  Am- 
brose and  Jerome,  which  he  approves  as  '  faithfully  explain- 
ing the  sentiments  of  the  apostle.'  1  The  same  thing  is  also 
taught  by  the  council  Aquisgranense,  A.  D.  816. 2 

The  same  thing  follows  also  from  other  injunctions  of  the 
apostle.  Thus,  in  1  Tim.  5:  1,  Timothy  is  required  'to 
rebuke  not  a  presbyter,  (rroeaSvTf  oo>.)  but  to  entreat  him  as  a 
father,  ....  the  female  presbyters,  {nqia^vrsqag^)  as  mothers ; ' 
and  then,  it  is  added,  '  honor  widows  who  are  widows 
indeed.'  Now  why  this  passage  should  not  be  supposed  to 
refer  to  officers  of  the  church,  male  and  female,  younger  and 
older,  we  cannot  imagine.  There  is  to  us,  confessedly,  some- 
thing ludicrous  in  the  idea  of  female  presbyters,  but  the 
question  is,  what  was  the  state  of  the  case  in  the  apostles' 
days.  Now  that  there  were  several  presbyters  at  first  in  the 
same  church,  and  that  there  were  female  officers  of  the  same 
name,  cannot  be  denied.  'The  feminine  nqea^vrega  or 
7igFa{lvTt:}  presbyter  a  or  presbyterissa  is,'  says  the  learned 
episcopal  author  of  '  Christian  Antiquities,'  '  of  frequent 
occurrence  in  the  early  writers,  and  denotes  either  the  wife  of 
a  presbyter,  or  a  female  officer  of  the  church,  otherwise  called 

1 )  See  in  Binii   Concil.  torn.  vii.  2)   Seo  ibid,  torn.  vi.  p.  241. 

p  474,  c.  15,  c.  1,  D.  E.     See  also  Dr. 
Nolan's  Cath.  Char,  of  Christ. 


CHAP.  IX.]  AND    TITUS    WERE    PRESBYTERIAN.  209 

ividoiv  or  deaconess.''1  The  same  thing  is  testified  by  Bing- 
ham, who  gives  abundant  proof  to  show  that  they  were 
indifferently  called  by  all  these  names,  and  that  they  were 
required  to  be  widows,  and  even  such  as  had  children,  by 
the  same  laws.'2  Such  also  is  the  view  presented  by  Mr.  Cole- 
man,3 who  says,  '  the  office  of  deaconess  may  be  regarded  as 
substantially  the  same  with  that  of  female  presbyters.''  But 
what  is  more  than  all  this,  they  are  spoken  of  elsewhere  by 
this  same  apostle.4  There  can  be  no  doubt,  also,  that  these 
female  helpers  were  consecrated  to  their  office  by  prayer  and 
imposition  of  hands,  and  that,  although  not  empowered  to 
discharge  any  of  the  duties  of  the  ministry,  they  were  in 
many  ways  eminently  useful  in  the  existing  condition  of  the 
church.5  Now  here  Timothy  is  reminded,  that  these  presbyters 
stood  on  full  ministerial  equality  with  himself,  and  that  he  is 
not,  therefore,  to  presume  upon  his  authority,  or  treat  them  other- 
wise than  as  fathers  and  mothers  in  Israel,  and  the  younger 
ones  as  brethren  and  sisters,  that  is,  as  coequals. 

Again,  in  1  Tim.  5:  19,  the  apostle  enjoins  upon  Timothy 
'  against  a  presbyter  6  to  receive  not  an  accusation  but  before 
two  or  three  witnesses,'  that  is,  before  as  many  of  the  other 
presbyters  as  might  constitute  a  presbytery.  Timothy  is  re- 
strained and  limited  by  this  express  rule,  which  he  is  bound  to 
observe.  The  offending  presbyter  was  to  be  tried  before  his 
peers,  and  then,  and  not  till  then,  to  be  condemned.  No  accu- 
sation was  to  be  received  by  Timothy,  except  before  such  a 
court,  and  even  when  faulty,  Timothy  was  not  to  rebuke,  but 
to  exhort  them,  as  fathers.  And,  further,  if  Timothy  presided 
in  the  court  thus  called,  he  was  to  sit  there  as  being  one  of  the 
same  order  with  the  rest,  as  has  been  customary  in  ecclesias- 
tical bodies  in  all  ages  of  the  church.7  The  apostle  here  cuts 
up  by  the  very  roots,  that  prelatic  assumption  of  exclusive 

1)  Christ.  Antiq.  p.  236.  Con-  say  ii.  §  20,  p.  131  ;  Neander's  Hist, 
cerning  their  office,  see  Cotel.  ad  Con-  of  the  Chr.  Rel.  vol.  i.  p.  191.  Such 
stit.  Apost.  lib.  iii.  c.  g.  and  Zimmer-  female  officers,  for  the  benefit  of  the 
man  de  Presbyt.  et  Presbyterissis.  female  portion  of  the  congregation, 
Burnet's  Obs.  on  the  Second  Canon,  were  approved  of  by  the  reformers, 
p.  68,  &c.  and  were    in   use   in  the    Bohemian 

2)  Eccl.  Ant.  vol.  i.  p.  247,  &c.  church,  and  are  still  found  in  the  Mo- 

3)  Christ.  Antiq.  pp.  107,  115.  ravian  church.      See  Bosfs    Hist,  of 

4)  Rom.  16 :  1.  the  Bohem.  and  Morav.  Brethren,  p. 

5)  See  Coleman,  ibid,  p.  117,  and  131.  Taylor's  Apostolic  Baptism,  p. 
all   of   §    12,  where   their  duties  are  157, &c. 

given;  Riddle,  ibid,  p.  252;  Bingham,  6)  So  it  is  rendered  by  Bp.  Spar- 

vol.  i.  p.  251.     See  also  full  authori-     row  on  the  Auth.  of  the  Ch.in  Tracts 
ties  on  the  whole  subject,  presented     of  Anglican  Faith,  vol.  i.  p.  333. 
by  bishop  Burnet,  in  his  Obs.  on  the  7)  See  Elliott  on   Romanism,  p. 

Second  Canon,  p.  68,  &c.     See  also    461. 
Whateley's  Kingdom  of  Christ.     Es- 
27 


210  SCRIPTURE    CLEARLY    PROVES  [BOOK   I. 

jurisdiction,  which  is  now  declared  to  reside  only  in  the  order 
of  prelates,  and  not  at  all  in  that  of  presbyters.  So  manifestly 
is  prelacy  and  the  Bible  opposite,  the  one  to  the  other.  And 
thus  have  we  demonstrated,  that,  as  Timothy  was  presbyteri- 
ally  ordained,  so  he  and  Titus  were,  as  evangelists,  presbyters; 
and  that  in  all  their  ordinations,  as  it  is  certain  they  consecrat- 
ed only  presbyters,  they  themselves  acted  only  as  presbyters, 
and  in  association  with  other  presbyters.  But  were  we  to 
admit,  that  in  ordaining  ministers  they  acted,  at  least,  in  some 
extreme  cases,  alone,  this  would  not  affect  us,  since  it  would 
not  be  deemed  improper,  even  now,  for  some  modern  pres- 
bytery, in  any  case  of  absolute  necessity,  to  depute  one  of 
their  number  to  ordain  ministers  in  some  heathen  or  destitute 
settlements. *  But  this  manifestly  would  not  prove,  what  pre- 
latists  affirm,  that  the  apostles,  with  these  associates,  instituted 
an  order  of  prelates,  who  had  power  in  other  churches  besides 
their  own ;  and  that  to  these  was  given  not  only  the  power  of 
ordination,  but  also  the  power  of  imparting  to  others  the  same 
authority,  and  of  limiting  it  to  them.  This,  as  Mr.  Goode 
allows,  prelatists  are  bound  to  prove,  and  this,  he  adds,  'will 
be  a  hard  task.'2 

But,  it  may  be  said,  if  presbyters  were  thus  originally 
empowered  to  ordain  and  govern,  —  what  need  was  there  to 
send  to  them,  and  to  their  churches,  Timothy  and  Titus,  with 
such  extraordinary  directions?  We  answer,  that  all  the  direc- 
tions and  charges  contained  in  these  epistles  were  proper, 
advisable,  and  necessary  for  the  better  instruction  of  pres- 
byters, and  churches,  in  our  own  day,  as  well  as  at  that  time. 
They  are,  as  it  regards  all  times,  the  dictates  of  inspiration, 
and  designed  to  be  an  authoritalive  rule  of  faith  and  practice. 
In  the  case  of  these  churches,  however,  since  they  were  as 
yet  imperfectly  organized,  more  than  mere  instruction  was 
necessary;  and,  therefore,  these  evangelists  were  sent  to  them 
by  the  apostles,  with  powers  suited  to  the  exigency  of  the 
occasion,  and  authority  to  see  these  directions  carried  into  full 
operation.  The  epistles  themselves,  however,  were  designed 
by  God  for  the  churches,  and  not  for  Timothy  or  Titus.  The 
directions,  duties,  and  functions,  here  described,  were  given 
for  their  and  our  instruction.     All  the   ministerial   acts   here 

1)   Hence  it  has  been  argued,  that  tive  Evangelist,  by  Rev.  David  Doug- 

the  order  of  evangelists  were  design-  lass,  Baptist,  p.  210. 

ed  to  be  as  permanent  as  the  unevan-  2)   Goode's   Div.  Rule  of  Faith, 

gelized  condition  of  any  portion  of  our  vol.    ii.    p.    70.    F.ng.  ed.       See  also 

globe.     See  Essay  on  the  Nature  and  Pierce's  Def.  of  Pies.  Ord.  part.  ii.  pp. 

Perpetuity  of  the  Office  of  the  Primi-  25,  28. 


CHAP.  IX.]     THAT  PRESBYTERS  CAN  ORDAIN.  211 

enjoined,  are  to  be  performed  by  the  ministers  here  described. 
And  as  it  is  granted,  that  we  have  here  no  account  of  any 
other  ministers  than  presbyters,  presbyters  are  here,  to  the 
end  of  time,  empowered  to  ordain  other  ministers  by  the 
laying  on  of  their  hands.1 

§  3.  Conclusion  of  the  scripture  argument  for  the  power  of 
presbyters  to  ordain.  No  evidence  to  be  found  for  prelatical 
ordination. 

We  have  thus,  we  trust,  satisfactorily  proved,  by  plain  and 
positive  testimony  from  scripture,  that  presbyters  did,  and,  there- 
fore, can  still  ordain  other  ministers.  On  the  other  hand,  while 
we  have  found  abundant  instances  in  which  ordinations  were 
performed  by  presbyters,  and  by  the  apostles,  in  their  char- 
acter of  presbyters,  we  do  not  find  in  scripture  any  instances 
of  ordination,  by  a  single  individual,  nor  by  any  number  of 
individuals,  under  the  assumed  character  of  prelates.  There 
is  no  such  instance  to  be  produced  from  the  whole  New 
Testament.  Neither  do  we  read  of  any  one  case  wThere  those 
who  were  first  ordained  as  presbyters,  were  afterwards  conse- 
crated as  prelates  ;  nor  any  reiteration  of  christian  ordination 
under  any  circumstances  whatever,  and  yet  the  book  of  Acts 
embraces  the  history  of  the  church  for  thirty  years.  We  know 
that  there  was  no  ordination  in  the  Jewish  church  after  the 
first ;  and,  as  this  custom  of  ordination  was  derived  from  it, 
we  must  presume  the  order  of  the  synagogue  was  followed.2 
The  contrary,  we  have  certainly  no  right  to  assume,  against 
fact,  utility,  and  Jewish  example.3  On  this  point,  let  us 
refer  to  trie  testimony  of  bishop  Croft.4  The  whole  theory 
of  prelatic  ordination  is  an  idle  hypothesis,  without  any 
manner  of  support  in  the  word  of  God.  It  is  not  only  not 
true  that  prelates  alone  are  authorized  to  ordain ;  it  is  not 
true  that  the  Bible  knows  any  thing  of  prelates,  or  allows  to 
them  either  the  power  of  ordination  or  of  any  thing  else.  The 
only  permanent  order  of  ministers  known  to  the  scriptures,  is 
that  of  presbyters  or  bishops,  and  the  only  ordination  it  pre- 
scribes is  presbyterian  ordination.  Presbyters,  therefore,  have 
the  power  of  ordination. 

1)  Milton's  Wks.  vol.  i.  pp.  86,  87.  4)   Naked    Truth,    or    the    True 

2)  See   Bp.  Beveridge,  Wks.  vol.     State   of  the    Primit.   Ch.  in    Scott's 
ii .  p.  1 1 1 .  Coll.  of  Tracts,  vol.  vii.  p.  297. 

3)  Dr.  Wilson's    Prim.   Govt.  p. 

274. 


CHAPTER    X 


THAT    PRESBYTERS     HAVE    THE     POWER     OF    ORDINATION, 
PROVED   BY  AN  APPEAL  TO  ANTIQUITY. 


§  1.  Presbyterian  ordination  attested  by  facts  and  testimonies, 
from  the  earliest  ag-es. 

Before  leaving  this  subject  of  ordination,  we  will  produce 
some  testimonies  in  support  of  our  conclusion.  And  to  pat 
the  matter  beyond  controversy,  we  affirm,  to  use  the  words 
of  Dr.  Rice,  that  there  was  no  ordination  performed  at 
all,  from  the  days  of  the  apostles,  until  at  least  two  hundred 
and  fifty  years  after  Christ,  by  any  but  presbyters.  During 
the  first  two  centuries,  the  modern  distinction  between  bishop 
and  presbyter  was  unknown  to  the  church.1  The  exclusive 
power  of  ordination,  claimed  by  prelates,  is  an  usurpation, 
supported  by  nothing  but  decrees  of  councils,  and  contrary  to 
the  whole  practice  of  the  pure,  primitive  age  of  Christianity. 
When  presidents  were  chosen,  or  succeeded  to  others,  they 
were  not  reordained,  in  the  first  two  centuries.2  As  late  as 
the  council  of  Nice,  in  A.  D.  325,  this  practice  of  at  once 
passing  into  the  office  of  bishop  is  forbidden,  thus  showing 
that  at  that  time  the  ordination  of  a  bishop  was  sometimes 
the  first  and  only  ordination.  Ambrose,  of  Milan,  Nectarius, 
of  Constantinople,  Eusebius,  the  successor  of  Basil,  Euche- 
rius,  bishop  of  Lyons,  Cyprian,  of  Carthage,  and  Philogo- 
nius,  of  Antioch,  are  all  thought  to  have  been  laymen,  when 
ordained  to  be  bishops.  Many  others  passed  from  the  order 
of  deacon  to  that  of  bishop;  thus  proving,  thai  there  were 
then  only  ordinations  for  two  orders.3  According  to  Hippo- 
lyliis,  and   the    apostolical    constitutions,    the    presidents    or 

1)  Evang.  Mag.  vol.  ix.  p.GlS.  3)  Dr.  Wilson,  ibid,  p.  231. 

2)  Dr.    Wilson's   Prim.   Govt,   of 
the  Ch.  p.  135. 


CHAP.  X.]  TESTIMONY  OF  THE  FATHERS.  213 

bishops,  were  set  apart  to  their  office,  not  by  imposition  of 
hands,  but  by  the  simple  form  of  '  holding  the  divine  gospels 
opened  over  the  head  of  him  who  was  ordained,'  while  pres- 
byters were  consecrated  to  their  office  by  imposition  of 
hands.  Nor  is  there  any  proof  that  the  elevation  of  a  presbyter 
to  the  duty  of  president  or  prelate,  was  considered  as  an  or- 
dination, or  attended  by  imposition  of  hands,  before  the 
middle  of  the  third  century.1  '  As  for  the  consecration  of 
bishops,  by  a  new  imposition  of  hands,  it  doth  not,'  says 
bishop  Burnet,  '  prove  them  a  distinct  office ;  being  only  a 
solemn  benediction,  and  separation  of  them,  for  the  discharge 
of  that  inspection  committed  to  them.'2  Hilary,  as  the  same 
bishop  acknowledges,  was  of  opinion  that  the  elder  presbyter 
without  any  election  or  ordination,  succeeded  to  the  chair  of 
the  deceased  bishop.3  Dionysius,  the  Areopagite,  also  tells  us 
that  the  presbyter  was  ordained  in  the  same  form  that  a 
bishop  was  ordained,  save  only,  that  the  gospel  was  not  laid 
on  his  head.4 

In  the  epistle  to  Hiero,  ascribed  to  Ignatius,  speaking  of 
his  presbyters,  he  says,  'they  baptize,  they  celebrate  the 
eucharist,  they  impose  hands  in  penance,  they  ordain.'5 
Equally  plain  is  the  declaration  of  Firmilian,  himself  a 
bishop,  in  a  letter  to  Cyprian.  'The  presbyters  preside, who 
possess  the  power  of  baptizing,  imposing  the  hands,  and 
ordaining.'6  Hilary,  the  deacon,  says,  that  'in  Egypt,  even 
to  this  day,  the  presbyters  ordain  in  the  bishop's  absence,' 
and  that  '  the  ordination  of  bishop  and  presbyter  is  the  same, 
for  both  are  priests.'7  The  general  synod  of  Nice,  in  their 
epistle  to  the  churches  of  Alexandria,  &c,  authorized  the 
clergy,  ordained  by  Meletius,  to  ordain  ministers,  and  to 
nominate  men  for  the  sacred  office.8  And  that  those,  here 
referred  to,  were  presbyters  and  not  prelates,  appears  from 
their  character,  '  such  as  were  entered  into  holy  orders ; '  from 
their  having  been  ordained  by  Meletius  alone ;  from  their 
having  been  deprived  of  the  privileges  of  presbyters ;  and 
because  they  are  prohibited  from  preaching  in  any  church, 
without  the  consent  of  the  bishop.     And  '  as  for  those,'  says 

1)  See  ibid,  pp.  226,  227,  and  229,  5)   Cap.  iii.  p.  114,  ed.   Cotel.  in 
230,  231,  273,  135,  148,  and   Nolan's     Thorndike,  pp.  163,  164. 

Cath.  Char.  p.  18.  6)   Cyprian,  Ep.  75. 

2)  Vind.    of   the    Ch.  of    Scotl.  7)   On  Ephes.  4 :  2,  and  1  Tim.  3. 
Conf.  iv.  p.  181,  ed.  2d.  1724.  8)  Socrates,  Hist.  Eccl.  1.  i.  c.   9, 

3)  Obs.  on  the  1st  Canon,  p.  6.  and  quoted  in  Baxter  on  Episc.  part  ii. 

4)  Burnet's  Obs.  on  the  2d    Ca-  pp.   104,   105,  'aucloritatem   habeant 
non,  p.  65.  turn  ministros  ordinandi,  turn  eos  qui 

clero  digni  fuerint  nominandi,'  &c. 


214  THE    FATHERS    PROVE    THAT  [BOOK    I. 

the  council,  '  who  have  been  found  in  no  schism,  but  have 
ever  remained  immaculate  in  the  catholic  church,  it  pleased 
the  holy  synod  that  they  should  have  power  to  ordain.'1 
The  presbyters,  therefore,  of  the  church  of  Alexandria,  and 
the  other  churches  of  Egypt,  were  still  allowed,  in  the  fourth 
century,  their  full  power  of  ordination ;  and  this  power,  the 
council  goes  on  to  say,  is  '  according  to  the  ecclesiastical  law 
of  sanction.'2 

Paphnutius,  who  was  only  a  presbyter,  ordained  his 
disciple  Daniel,  first  a  deacon,  and  afterwards  a  presbyter.3 
The  chorepiscopi,  or  country  bishops,  ordained  both  presbyters 
and  deacons.4  In  the  fourth  century,  when  the  prelatical 
hierarchy  had  attained  to  some  maturity,  these  rural  bishops, 
or  chorepiscopi,  as  well  as  presbyters  generally,  were  forbid- 
den to  ordain.5  If,  then,  these  chorepiscopi  were  prelates 
before  this  time,  it  follows  that  only  some  prelates  can  ordain, 
that  is,  those  only  who  are  permitted  by  their  masters.  And 
if  they  were  not  prelates,  but  only  presbyters,  then  presbyters 
were  at  liberty  to  ordain,  until  the  church  was  enslaved  by 
spiritual  despotism.  But  that  the  chorepiscopi  were  as  truly 
bishops  as  any  others,  while  yet  they  were  only  parochial 
ministers,  is  made  manifest  from  this  fact,  that  there  were 
also,  in  ancient  times,  rural  presbyters,  (em/wowi  TTQeaSureooi 
or  reg-ionarii)  who  were  regarded  as  inferior  to  the  city  pres- 
byters. But  were  they,  therefore,  of  an  inferior  order  to  the 
city  presbyters  ?  Surely  not,  and  for  the  same  reason,  rural 
bishops  (t7Ttzu>Qtoi  f-moxonoi)  were  not  an  order  inferior  to 
city  bishops.0  This  will  appear  still  further,  from  '  The  Reduc- 
tion of  Episcopacy  unto  the  Form  of  Synodial  or  Presbyterial 
Government,'  by  archbishop  Usher,  wherein  he  allows  that 
the  suffragans  '  supplying  the  place  of  those,  who,  in  the 
ancient  church  were  called  chorepiscopi,'  '  may  lawfully  use 
the  power  both  of  jurisdiction  and  ordination,  according  to 
the  word  of  God,  and  the  practice  of  the  ancient  church.7 

1)  Socrates,  Eccl.  Hist.  lib.  i.e.  0.  5)  Bingham  Oris;.  Eccl.  B.ii.  ch. 

2)  See  Powell  on  the  Apost.  Succ.  xiv.  §  2.  See  council  of  Ancyra,  Can. 
ed.  2nd.  pp.  128,  129,  and  p.  311.  That  13,  in  Binii  Cone.  torn.  i.  pp.277,  27S, 
the   word   t^c^u^i^cu-m     here     refers  and  our  remarks. 

to    ordination,   is   manifest   from    its  6)  See  Riddle's  Christ.  Antiq.  p. 

being  sci  used  in  the  very  passage  in  235;  also   at  p.  173.  where  he  shows 

reference  to  the  bishop  of  Alexandria,  they  ordained  ;  and   Burnet  Obs.   on 

See  ibid.  1st  Canon, p.  4S,  Suppl. 

3)  Cassian,  Collat.  iv.  c.  1.  7)  Judgment  of  the  archbishop  of 

4)  See  full  on  in  Jameson's  Fun-  Armagh,  by  Dr.  Bernard,  Lond.  1657, 
damentals  of  the  Hier.  p.  211,  &c.  pp.  8  and  12,  of  the  Reduction,  &c.  at 
Baxter  on   Episc.  part  ii.  pp.  62,  63.  the  end. 

Jameson's  Cyprianus  Isotimus,  p.497. 


CHAP.  X.]  PRESBYTERS  CAN  ORDAIN.  215 

Usher  did  not  lightly  appeal  to  the  ancient  church.  By  the 
council  of  Antioch,  the  chorepiscopi  were  allowed  to  govern 
their  own  churches,  to  ordain  readers,  subdeacons,  exorcists, 
and  even  deacons  and  presbyters,  with  the  permission  of  the 
city  bishop.1  By  the  13th  canon  of  the  council  of  Ancyra,  they 
were  confirmed  in  the  same  privileges.2  Basil,  the  Great,  in 
an  epistle  to  his  chorepiscopi,  confirms  to  them  the  full  power 
they  then  had,  of  creating  both  presbyters  and  deacons.3 
The  same  conclusion  must  be  drawn  from  the  8th  canon  of 
the  council  of  Nice.  Nicolas  I,  Pope,  A.  D.  864,  being 
consulted  on  this  very  point,  decided,  that  whereas  in  many 
regions  these  chorepiscopi  ordained  deacons  and  presbyters, 
and  some  bishops  lately  had  deposed  those  so  ordained,  such 
reordinations  ought  not  to  be  allowed,  since  no  one  could 
question  that,  like  the  seventy,  they  were  true  bishops.5  Raba- 
nus  Maurus,  in  an  epistle  concerning  them,  traces  chorepis- 
copi to  the  time  of  Peter  and  Clemens,  and  says  that  they 
ever  had  full  right  to  ordain  all  the  orders,  and  discharge 
every  episcopal  function.  He  wonders  greatly  at  the  conten- 
tion on  this  point,  which  he  does  not  hesitate  to  ascribe  to 
pride  and  envy.6  The  character  of  these  chorepiscopi 
appears  further  from  the  fact,  that  they  are  never  ranked 
among  presbyters,  but  as  a  distinct  class  between  bishops 
and  presbyters.  And  while,  by  law,  they  were  abolished  as 
an  order  in  the  ninth  century,  yet,  as  Natalus  Alexander 
proves,  they  still  continued  to  retain  their  place,  and  to  be 
pepetuated.8 

But  if,  as  many  papists  and  prelatists  would  now  teach, 
these  rural  bishops  were  presbyters,  then  of  course  all  the 
evidence  for  their  original  power  of  ordination,  is  proof  for 
the  original  and  inherent  power  of  presbyters  to  ordain,  and 
for  the  subsequent  withdrawment  of  that  power  by  hierarch- 
ical usurpation.  Now  that,  in  the  judgment  of  many,  they 
were  only  presbyters,  is  certain.  '  The  chorepiscopi,'  says 
Leo,  '  according  to  the  canons  of  Neo  Csesarea,  or  according 

1)  See  Dissert.  De  Chorepiscopi,  dain,  is  acknowledged  by  Jeremy  Tay- 
Natali  Alexandre,  Paris,  1678,  p.  173.  lor,  in  his   Episc.    Asserted  in    Wks. 

2)  Ep.  181,  in  ibid,  p.  174.  vol.  vii.  p.  128.     So  also  Dr.  Forbes  in 

3)  Ibid,  p.  176.  Jus.  Div.  Min.  part  ii.  p.  135,  where 

4)  See  ibid,  p.  181.  see  also  the  opinion  of  Hispalensis, 

5)  Ad  DrogonemMetensim  Episc.  who  lived  A.  D.  630,  in  libro.  de  Off. 
ibid,  p.  1S3.  Eccl.  c.  6,  who  says  they  yet  remained 

6)  Ibid,  p.  185,  Concil.  Chalced.  in  the  church.     Dr.  Field  of  the  Ch. 
Can.  12.  lib.  iii.  c.  39.     Forbeis  Irenicum,  cap. 

7)  Ibid,  pp.  187,  188.  11.    Tertium    Partem.    Thomce   disp. 

8)  That  they  could  originally  or-  238,  c.  7. 


216  THE  FATHERS  PROVE  THAT  [BOOK  I. 

to  the  decrees  of  other  fathers,  are  the  same  as  presbyters.'1 
So  speak  Isodore  Hispalensis,  and  Damasus,2  and  the  council 
of  Hispalensis.  Dr.  Field  also  affirms,  that  chorepiscopi 
'do  daily  in  the  Romish  church,  confirm  and  give  orders,'3 
and  that  these  '  chorepiscopi  suffragans,  as  they  call  them, 
being  not  bishops,  but  only  presbyters,  do  daily,  with  good 
allowance,  ordain  presbyters,  and  all  other  episcopal  acts.' 4 
And  Natalus  Alexander,  with  the  sanction  of  the  whole 
faculty  of  the  University  of  Paris,  has  published  an  elabo- 
rate dissertation,  to  prove  that  the  chorepiscopi  were  only 
presbyters,  for  which  he  produces  a  host  of  authorities.5  The 
conclusion,  therefore,  is  inevitable,  that  originally  bishops  and 
presbyters  were  the  same,  and  that  presbyters  were  deprived  of 
this  power  of  ordination  by  ecclesiastical  tyranny.  '  Hence  it 
came  to  pass,'  says  Moshiem,  '  that  at  the  conclusion  of  this, 
the  fourth  century5  there  remained  no  more  than  a  mere 
shadow  of  the  ancient  government  of  the  church.  Many  of 
the  privileges,  which  had  formerly  belonged  to  the  presbyters 
and  people,  were  usurped  by  the  bishops.'6 

Neither  was  that  usurpation  unresisted.  Many  were  still 
disposed  to  assert  their  rights,  and  it  required  all  that  large 
ecclesiastical  assemblies  could  do,  to  reduce  the  resisting 
presbyters  to  obedience.7  These  dissentients  —  or  rather 
these  true  christian  patriots  —  found  a  voice  in  Aerius,  who 
boldly  proclaimed  the  defection  of  the  church,  and  the  true 
original  identity  of  bishops  and  presbyters.  With  him  agreed 
Jerome,  Augustine,  and  Ambrose,  as  we  shall  afterwards  see, 
and  many  others  in  subsequent  ages.8  To  this  agree  the  words 
of  Mr.  Thorndike,  who  says,  '  Now  of  all  the  parts  of  the 
office,  common  to  bishops  and  presbyters,  this  of  ordination 
is  the  first,  the  bishop  began  to  exercise  alone,  so  that  with 
St.  Chrysostom,  and  St.  Jerome,  it  is  taken  in  a  manner  for 
granted,  that  it  was  to  be  done  by  him  alone.'9  Equally 
candid,  is  bishop  Burnet,  in  alluding  to  the  same  early  and 
undeniable  encroachment.  Speaking  of  the  fact,  that  'no 
ordination  of  presbyters  might  be  gone  through,  without  the 
presence  and  concurrence  of  the  bishop,'  he  says,  this  '  was 
judged  necessary,  (as  I  suppose,)  more  upon  the  account  of 
unity  and  order,  than  from  the  nature  of  the  thing  itself;  for 

1)  Ep.8S,in  Jus.  Div.  Min.part  ii.  6)    Eccl.  Hist.   Cent.  iv.  part  ii. 
p.   137.  ch.  ii. 

2)  In  ibid.  7)  See  Plea  for  Presbytery,  p.  40. 

3)  Can.  7,  in  ibid.  and  Boydon  Kpisc.p.  46. 

4)  Of  the  Ch.  lib.  iii.  c.  38.  S)  See  Stillingtleet,  Irenic. part  ii. 

5)  Dissert.     Eccl.    Trias    Paris,  ch.vi. 

1678,  pp.  166-188.  9)  Prim.  Govt,  of  the  Ch.  p.  158. 


CHAP  X.]  PRESBYTERS  CAN  ORDAIN.  217 

taking  things  in  themselves  it  will  follow,  that  whatever 
power  one  hath  he  may  transmit  to  another ;  and,  therefore, 
there  seems  to  be  small  reason  why  one  who  hath  the  power 
of  preaching  the  gospel,  and  administering  sacraments,  may 
not  also  transmit  the  same  to  others ;  and  it  seems  unrea- 
sonable so  to  appropriate  this  to  a  bishop,  as  to  annul  those 
ordinations  which  were  managed  by  presbyters,  when  bishops 
could  not  be  had.'1 

Nor  does  our  conclusion  less  certainly  follow  from  the  13th 
canon  of  the  council  of  Ancyra.  '  It  is  not  allowed  to  village 
bishops  to  ordain  presbyters  or  deacons;  nor  is  it  allowed 
even  to  city  presbyters  to  do  this  in  another  diocese,  without 
the  license  of  the  bishop.'  From  this  canon  it  would 
appear,  that  it  was  then  (A.  D.  358,)  lawful  for  presbyters  of 
the  city  to  ordain,  without  the  bishop's  presence,  if  they  had 
his  warrant  in  writing.  It  also  appears,  that  before  that  time 
they  could  ordain  without  the  bishop's  warrant,  to  which 
they  were  limited  by  this  canon.2  Further,  it  would  appear 
that  city  presbyters  are  here  preferred  to  country  bishops,  and 
that  while  the  power  of  ordination  was,  at  this  time,  taken 
from  the  latter,  its  exercise  was  still  allowed  to  the  former,  as 
an  inherent  right,  and  is  only  limited  by  certain  restrictions. 
And,  as  many  of  the  most  learned  prelatists  allow  that  these 
country  bishops  had,  by  divine  right,  the  power  of  ordina- 
tion, much  more  must  they  allow  that  this  power  belongs,  by 
divine  right,  to  presbyters.  According,  however,  to  the  trans- 
lation of  bishop  Jeremy  Taylor,  this  canon  recognises  the 
inherent  power  of  ordination  as  belonging  equally  to  both  the 
country  bishops  and  the  city  presbyters.  '  Rural  bishops 
shall  not  ordain  presbyters  or  deacons  in  another  diocese, 
without  letters  of  license  from  a  bishop.  Neither  shall  priests 
of  the  city  attempt  it.'3  Either  way,  it  fully  proves  our  posi- 
tion. The  same  thing  follows,  also,  from  the  very  similar 
canon  of  the  council  of  Antioch,  A.  D.,  341,  canon  10th. 
By  this  canon,  rural  bishops  are  allowed  '  to  ordain  readers, 
subdeacons,  and  exorcists;'  but  not  the  higher  orders,  'with- 
out the  knowledge  of  the  bishop  of  that  city  or  church  in 
which  he,  or  the  diocese  (regio)  over  which  he  presides,  is 

1)  Obs.onthe  2d  Canon,  p.  55.  vetus,  the    Arabic  manuscript,  Zona- 

2)  SeeinBinii  Concil.  torn.  i.pp.  ras  on  this  Canon,  Aristenus,  Wallo 
277,  278.  There  is  a  different  reading  Messalinus,  and  Blondel.  See  Bur- 
of  this  Canon,  by  which  its  natural  net's  Obs.  on  the  2d  Canon,  p.  55. 
meaning  is  attempted  to  be  set  aside.  3)  See  Episc.  Ass.  ch.  vi.  vol. 
But  the  reading  which  gives  our  sense  vii.  of  Wks.  pp.  128,  129,  and  Powell 
is  followed  by  Binius,  Gentianus,  Her-  on  Apost.  Succ.  pp.  127,  128. 

28 


218  THE     FATHERS     CLEARLY    PROVE  [BOOK  I. 

found.'1  '  Surely,'  says  Dr.  Forbes,  the  episcopal  professor, 
in  Aberdeen,  '  the  church  would  not  have  granted  this  power 
to  the  chorepiscopi,  unless  it  had  judged  that  ordination  to  be 
valid  which  is  performed  by  presbyters  alone.'- 

Jerome,  in  his  commentary  on  the  third  chapter  of  Zeph- 
aniah,  very  plainly  attributes  to  presbyters  their  original  right 
of  ordination.  '  Priests,'  says  he,  'who  baptize  and  admin- 
ister the  eucharist,  anoint  with  oil,  impose  hands,  instruct 
catechumens,  constitute  levites  and  other  priests,  have  less 
reason  to  take  offence  at  us  for  explaining  these  things  .... 
than  to  ask  of  the  Lord  forgiveness.'3 

The  ancient  practice  of  ihe  church  is  attested,  also,  by  the 
facts  connected  with  the  case  of  Ischryas.  He  was  ordained 
by  Colluthus,  who  was  a  presbyter,  and  had  lapsed  into 
heresy  and  raised  a  distinct  sect.  Ischryas  was,  therefore, 
beyond  doubt  irregularly  ordained.  Accordingly,  when  the 
case  was  brought  before  the  provincial  synod  of  Alexandria, 
Colluthus  was  reprimanded  for  ordaining  irregularly.  But 
he  was  not  deposed ;  and  while  those  ordinations  which  he 
performed  during  his  schism  were  annulled,  nothing  was 
alleged  against  those  performed,  either  before  or  subsequent 
to  that  event.  Indeed,  as  Du  Pin  informs  us,  this  Colluthus 
'  dwelt  at  Mareotis,  a  country  of  Egypt,  where  there  was 
neither  bishop  nor  suffragan,  but  only  a  great  many  parishes 
governed  by  priests.'4  It  is,  therefore,  manifest,  as  Stilling- 
lieet  admits,  that  all  restraints  upon  the  ordaining  power  of 
presbyters  arose  from  ecclesiastical  law,  and  not  from  any 
divine  institution.  As  late  as  A.  D.  39S,  in  a  council  of 
Carthage,  it  was  enacted,  that  in  every  ordination  of  presby- 
ters, '  all  the  presbyters  present  should  hold  their  hands  upon 
the  head  of  him  who  was  ordained,  near  to  the  hand  of  the 
bishop.'5  Nay,  at  the  ordination  of  Pelagius,  bishop  of 
Rome,  although,  by  the  fourth  canon  of  the  council  of  Nice, 
and  other  councils,0  three  bishops  were  required  for  the  ordi- 
nation of  a  bishop,  there  were  only  two  bishops,  and  one 
presbyter.     This  was  as  late  as  A.  D.  558.     Either,  therefore, 

1)  Held  under  pope  Julius  I.  See  5)  Binii  Concilia,  vol.  i.  p.  553. 
Binii  Concil.  torn.  i.  p.  508,  and  Hispa.  So  also  in  the  council  of  Aken.  A.  D. 
on  it,  in  Jus.  Div.  Min.  part  ii.  p.  135.  400,  and  Cyprian  Ep.  6  and  5S.     Am- 

2)  In  ibid,  p.  135.  brose  Ep.  B.  10.      See   Boyse's  Anct. 

3)  Tom.  v.  p.  218,  in  Dr.  Wilson,  Hpisc.  p.  235, for  an  answer  to  objec- 
p.  148.  tions. 

4)  See  Du  Pin's  l>rl.  Hist.  vol.  i.  6)  See  Cone.  Arel.  1,  Canon  01, 
p.  170.  Stillingfleet,  Irenic.partii.  ch.  Arel.  2,  Canon  5.  Carth.  2,  Canon  12. 
7,  p.  381.  Blondel's  Apology.  Plea  Gratian  Dist.  64.  Burnet's  Obs  on 
for  Presbytery,  p.  42.     Boyse's  Anct.  the  first  Canon,  p.  18. 

Episc.  p.  236. 


CHAP.  X.]  PRESBYTERIAN    ORDINATION.  219 

this  presbyter  Andrew,  had  the  power  of  ordaining,  when 
allowed  to  do  so,  or  else  Pelagius  was  not  validly  ordained, 
and  the  boasted  prelatical  succession  is  broken.  The  church 
certainly  did  not  then  believe,  that  the  two  bishops  alone 
could  transmit  the  succession,  else  they  would  not  have  em- 
ployed the  presbyter  Andrew.  They  did  believe,  that  he 
could  ordain  as  effectually  as  the  two  bishops,  when  appoint- 
ed to  the  duty,  otherwise  they  never  would  have  enacted 
such  a  farcical  mockery,  for  which  there  was  no  necessity, 
and  which  was  of  no  manner  of  use.  Neither  was  this  case 
singular,  since  the  instances  of  ordinations  of  bishops  by  single 
persons  are  numerous,  as  may  be  seen  in  Burnet.1  And 
thus  it  is  demonstrable,  that  in  the  judgment  of  the  church, 
as  late  as  the  sixth  century,  presbyters  were  believed  to  be 
inherently  capable  of  ordaining  even  bishops,  and  of  trans- 
mitting the  entire  plenitude  of  episcopal  grace.2  And  this 
the  church  of  Rome,  the  infallible  source  of  all  prelatical 
custom  and  law,  still  believes,  since  she  is  still  in  the  practice 
of  authorizing  presbyters  to  assist  at  the  ordination  of  bishops  ;3 
and  hence  the  whole  chain  of  the  Irish  and  American  Rom- 
ish succession  depends  upon  the  fact,  that  presbyters  are  as 
fully  capable  as  prelates  of  ordaining  others.4  For  since  it 
is  a  received  maxim,  that  episcopus  potest  delegare  ea  quce 
sunt  jiirisdictionis,  non  ea  qua?  sunt  ordinis,  '  a  bishop  can 
delegate  those  duties  which  appertain  to  jurisdiction,  but 
not  those  connected  with  ordination,'5  the  power  of  impart- 
ing ordination  must  be  believed  to  reside  inherently  in  pres- 
byters, otherwise  they  never  could  receive  it  at  all.  Some  of 
the  schoolmen,  therefore,  dared  to  affirm,  that  neither  bishop 
nor  pope  could  license  priests  to  give  ordination,  unless  the 
power  of  ordination  be  de  jure  in  presbyters,  even  as  they 
could  not  allow  one  to  consecrate,  who  was  not  in  orders, 
and  thus  able  to  officiate.6  We  must,  therefore,  conclude 
with  Dr.  Forbes,  that  '  the  ordination  which  is  by  presbyters 
alone,  is  not,  by  divine  right,  invalid ;  neither  is  ordination 
so  proper  by  divine  right  to  a  bishop,  that  it  may  not  be 

1)  Obs.  on  the  first   Canon,  pp.  against  Dr.  Wiseman,  ch.xviii.  Lond. 
18,  19.                 _  1840. 

2)  See   this  case  very  fully  and  5)  See   lord    Brooke     on    Episc. 
ably  argued  by  Faber  in  his Vallenses,  p.  74. 

and  Albigenses,  p.  553,  &c  6)  In  juredivino  non  protest  papa 

3)  Burnet's  Obs.  on  the  first  Ca-  dispensare.     Bellarm,  lib.  ii.  de  con- 
non,  P- IS.  cil,  c.  18,  and  lib.  de   Mat  rim,  c.  11. 

4)  See  the  proof  fully   given  by  See   Aureolus,  to  the  same    effect,  in 
Mr.  Palmer,    in  his    Episc.     Vindic  Jus.  Div.  Min.  part  ii.  p.  142. 


220  THE    FATHERS    AND    SCHOOLMEN    PROVE  [BOOK.   I. 

done,  even  in  the  opinion  of  papists  themselves,  by  presby- 
ters alone.'1 

The  churches  in  Egypt  and  in  Africa,  held,  as  we  have  seen, 
to  presbyterial  ordination.  This  is  further  evident  from  the 
case  of  the  church  of  Alexandria.  After  the  time  of  Hera- 
clas  and  Dionysius,  A.  D.  231,  the  bishops  or  presidents  of 
this  church  appear  to  have  been  prelatically  ordained.2  But, 
however  this  be,  previous  to  that  time,  even  from  the  days  of 
Mark,  the  presbyters  elected  one  of  their  own  number,  and 
set  him  apart  as  their  president.  This  fact,  which  certifies  the 
custom  of  one  of  the  most  prominent  churches  during  the 
three  first  centuries,  we  will  have  occasion  fully  to  substan- 
tiate.3 

According  to  Philostorgius,  the  Gothic  churches  were 
planted  and  governed  by  presbyters  only,  for  seventy  years.4 
The  same  was  the  case  with  the  churches  of  Scotland,  and  of 
England,  under  the  government  of  the  Culdees,  who  were 
only  presbyters,  for  hundreds  of  years,  as  we  shall  fully  show.5 
Such  also  was  the  order  of  the  churches  in  Gaul,  as  Stilling- 
fleet  thinks.6  The  Abyssinians  had  only  one  president  for 
their  whole  country.7  The  Scythians  had  no  more.8  Bal- 
samon  tells  us  of  some  churches  in  the  east,  for  whom  it  was 
thought  neither  safe  nor  expedient  to  have  bishops.9  Accord- 
ing to  Eusebius,  Fabianus  was  at  once  placed  upon  the  epis- 
copal throne  in  the  church  of  Rome,  by  the  church,  without 
any  episcopal  consecration.10  The  church  of  Rome  also, 
during  many  long  periods  when  there  was  no  bishop,  was 
governed,  and  every  function  discharged  by  the  presbyters.11 
This  was  the  case  also  with  the  church  at  Carthage,  and  with 

!the  churches  of  the  east.12 
Leo,  the    Great,   A.  D.  400,  being  consulted   concerning 
some  who  had  been  ordained  presbyters  and  deacons,  and 
who  claimed  to  be   bishops,  and   actually  ordained  others, 

1)  Irenic.    in  Jus.  Div.  Min.  part     on  the  first  Canon,  p.  33. 

ii.  p.  142.  5  See    Stillingfleet,   ibid,  p.  374. 

2)  Eutychius  of  Alexandria,  how-  Baxter,  ibid,  p.  224.  &c.  Plea  for  Pres- 
ever,  says,  the   original  custom  con-     bytery,  pp.  51-57,  and  279. 

tinued  until   the   time  of  Alexander,  6)  ibid, 

who  was  one  of  the  bishops  present  7)   Ibid. 

at  the  Council  of  Nice.  8)  Ibid. 

3)  See  B.  iii.  ch.  ii.  §  3.  See  9)  Burnet's  Obs.  on  the  first  Ca- 
also  Goode's   Div.  Rule  of  Faith  and  non  p.  32, 

Practice,  vol.  ii.  pp.  80-85,    Eng.  ed.  10)    Eccl.  Hist.  vi.   29,    Goode's 

Baxter's  Episc.   part  ii.  p.  223,  224,  Rule  of  Faith,  vol.  ii.  p.  85,  Note 

&c.     Bp.  Burnet  in  his   Obs.  on  the  11)  Stillingfleet,  ibid,  p.  376  and 

first  Canon  p.  8.  Burnet,  ibid. 

4)  See  Blondel's  Apol.  Stilling-  12)  See  Stillingfleet,  Irenic, p.  376. 
fleet,  Irenic,  p.  375,  and  Burnet's  Obs. 


CHAP.  X.]  PRESBYTERIAN    ORDINATION.  221 

decided  that  they  ought  not  to  be  considered  as  bishops, 
but  that  '  if  any  had  been  ordained  clergy  by  these  pseudo- 
bishops,  in  those  churches  over  which  there  were  bishops,  if 
their  ordination  was  done  with  the  knowledge  and  consent 
of  these  bishops,  it  ought  to  be  held  valid,  so  as  that  they  might 
continue  in  their  churches.'1 

As  late  as  the  time  of  Gregory,  bishop  of  Rome,  presby- 
ters, at  certain  times  and  in  some  places,  '  did  impose  hands 
and  confirm  those  that  were  baptized.'  And  when  this  pope 
wholly  forbade  their  doing  so  in  future,  there  was  so  great 
exception  taken  to  his  conduct,  that  he  again  restored  to  them 
their  privilege.2  But  still  further.  In  the  first  council  of 
Aquisgranense,  held  A.  D.  816,  under  pope  Stephen  V, 
c.  8,  it  is  said,  '  and  only  on  account  of  authority,  {solum  prop- 
ter auctoritalem,)  has  the  ordination  and  consecration  of  the 
clergy  to  the  chief  priesthood  (summo  sacerdoti)  been  reserved, 
lest  the  discipline  of  the  church,  being  committed  to  many, 
concord  should  be  destroyed  and  scandals  produced.'3  Thus 
manifestly  showing,  that  even  then,  ordination  to  inferior 
offices  was  still  permitted  to  presbyters,  and  that  all  other 
ordinations  were  withheld  only  by  ecclesiastical  custom 

The  power  of  confirmation  also,  which  is  regarded  by 
prelatists,  as  analagous  to  that  of  ordination,  is  in  the  Greek 
church  allowed  to  presbyters  ;  was  administered  by  presby- 
ters in  Alexandria,  and  throughout 4he  whole  of  Egypt;  and 
in  many  cases  also  in  the  western  church.4 

It  thus  appears,  that  while  not  one  good  proof  can  be 
brought  from  the  primitive  church,  against  ordination  by 
presbyters,  or  for  the  sole  ordination  of  prelates,  or  for  any 
other  ordination,  than  that  of  parochial  bishops  ;  there  is  not 
a  little  positive  evidence  in  favor  of  presbyterial  ordination.5 

§  2.     Presbyterian  ordination  confirmed  by  the  judgment  of 
the  Schoolmen. 

Among  the  Schoolmen  it  was  a  received  opinion,  that 
orders  conferred,  even  by  presbyters,  could  never  be  annul- 
led. Many  of  them  proved,  that  presbyters  could  ordain 
as  well  as  bishops,  since,  as  they  taught,  presbyters  could 

1)  Epist.  91,  cited  by  Gratian.  4)  See  Hilary  on  Ephes.  4,  and 
See  quoted  in  full  in  Baxter  on  Episc.  lib.  quaest.  in  Vat.  et  Nov.  Test,  attrib- 
part  ii.p.  225.  uted  to   Augustine,  q.  101,  and  Burnet 

2)  Field  on  the   Ch.  B.  iii.  c.39,  on  the  first  Canon,  pp.  41-43. 

pp.  155,  158.  5)  See   lord     Brooke    on    Episc. 

3)  See  Binii  Concilia,  torn.  vi.  p.  73.  See  also  Dr.  Rice,  in  the 
p.  241,  c.  2,  A.  B.  Evang.  Mag.  vol.  x.  pp.  613-633. 


222  THE    SCHOOLMEN    AND    PRELATISTS  [BOOK   I. 

consecrate,  which  is  the  greater  function,  and,  therefore,  could 
ordain,  which  is  the  less.  They  believed,  that  every  presby- 
ter has  the  actum  primum,  the  inward  power  to  ordain,  and 
that,  though  his  power  was  restrained  by  the  canons,  it  was 
not  extinguished. 

Bishop  Davenant  quotes  the  principal  of  the  schoolmen, 
as  being  of  the  opinion,  '  that  there  is  not  a  different  power 
of  order  in  bishops,  besides  what  is  in  presbyters,  but  only  a 
greater  degree.'1  The  same  thing  is  also  done  at  length  by 
archdeacon  Mason.2  Panormitanus  says,  '  formerly  presby- 
ters governed  the  church  in  common,  and  ordained  priests, 
and  alike  administered  all  the  sacraments.'3  Aureolus  has 
this  notable  passage.4  '  Every  form,  inasmuch  as  it  is  an 
act,  hath  power  to  communicate  itself  in  the  same  kind  ; 
therefore,  every  priest  hath  power  to  celebrate  orders.  Why 
then  do  they  not  celebrate  them?  Because  their  power  is 
hindered  by  the  decree  of  the  church.  Whereupon,  when  a 
bishop  is  made,  there  is  not  given  unto  him  any  new  power, 
but  the  former  power,  being  hindered,  is  set  at  liberty  ;  as  a 
man,  when  the  act  of  reason  is  hindered,  and  the  impedi- 
ment is  removed,  there  is  not  given  unto  him  a  new  soul.' 
Ambrosiaster  declares,  that  '  the  ordination  of  a  bishop  and 
a  presbyter  is  the  same,'  and,  that  'in  Egypt,  a  presbyter 
ordains  when  a  bishop  is  not  present.'5 

Armachanus,  a  very  learned  and  worthy  bishop,  and  many 
learned  men,  in  his  time,  were  of  opinion,  that  in  some  cases 
and  at  some  times,  presbyters  may  give  orders  —  and,  there- 
fore, that  their  power  was  inherent,  and  only  restrained  by 
custom.6  Armachanus  said,  'that  if  all  bishops  were  dead, 
inferior  priests  could  still  ordain.7  Durandus,  in  the  thir- 
teenth century,  says,  'touching  the  power  of  consecration 
or  order,  it  is  much  doubted,  among  divines,  whether  any  be 
greater  therein  than  an  ordinary  presbyter;  for,  Hierome 
seemeth  to  have  been  of  opinion,  that  the  highest  power 
of  consecration  <>r  order,  is  the  power  of  a  priest  or  elder, 
so  that  every    priest,  in  respect  of  his  priestly  power,  may 

1)  Determinations,  p.  42,  in   Ber-  the     Gloss,    Gregory's    Decretals,    in 

nard's  Judgmenl   of  archbishop   Ush-  ibid,  pp.  L39,  140,  and  Forbes,  in   Ire- 

er,  ]>.  ]  nicwm,  c.  1 1. 

21   See  in  ibid,  pp.  133, 134.  See  in  Elliott  on  Romanism, 

3)  Lib.  i.   Decretal,  de   Consuet  vol.  i. p. 472,  from  Ins  Comment,  on 
cap.  4,  Jus.  Div.  Min.  part  ii.  p.  i  1  Tn 

4)  Lib.  iv.  d.  24,  art.  2,  in  ibid,  p.  •       Field  on  the    Ch.  B.  iii.  c.  39, 
133.    See  also  similar  quotations  from  and  Bernard's  Judgment,  &C,  p.  132. 
Rosellus,  Panormitanus,  the  author  of  7)   Davenant  on  Col.  vol.  i.  p.  59. 


• 


CHAP.  X.J  PROVE    PRESBYTERIAN    ORDINATION.  223 

minister  all  sacraments  .  .  .  give  all  orders,'1  &c.  'All,' 
says  dean  Field,  '  that  may  be  alleged,  out  of  the  fathers,  for 
proof  of  the  contrary,  may  be  reduced  to  two  heads.  For, 
first,  whereas  when  they  make  all  such  ordinations  void,  as 
are  made  by  presbyters,  it  is  to  be  understood  according  to 
the  strictness  of  the  canons  in  use  in  their  time,  and  not  ab- 
solutely in  the  nature  of  the  thing;  which  appears,  in  that 
they  make  all  ordinations,  sine  titulo,  void ;  all  ordinations  of 
bishops,  ordained  by  fewer  than  three  bishops,  with  the  me- 
tropolitan, &c.  Secondly,  they  are  to  be  understood  regular- 
ly, that  is,  as  referring  to  what  was  considered  to  be  regular 
ordinations,  and  not  as  to  what  were  valid.''2  Neither  is  there 
any  difficulty  in  harmonizing  this  view  of  the  opinions  of 
the  later  fathers,  with  the  fact,  that  they  did  regard  the  office 
of  bishop  as  higher  in  dignity,  and  greater  in  jurisdiction, 
than  that  of  the  presbyterhood.  They  might  still  believe, 
that  presbyters  could,  by  inherent  power,  ordain  either  to  their 
own  office,  or  to  that  of  the  episcopate.  For,  in  like  manner, 
were  archbishops  consecrated  by  bishops,  and  patriarchs  by 
archbishops,  and  the  pope  himself,  by  his  cardinals.  In  civil 
society  also  kings,  and  all  others  in  authority,  are  introduced 
to  their  office  by  those  over  whom,  by  virtue  of  their  office, 
they  will  exercise  jurisdiction.  3 

The  power  of  order,  says  Carletan,  by  all  writers,  that  I 
could  see,  even  of  the  church  of  Rome,  is  understood  to  be 
immediately  from  Christ,  given  to  all  bishops  and  priests 
alike,  by  their  consecration,  wherein  the  pope  has  no  privi- 
lege above  others.  Thus  teaches  Bonaventure,  Augusti, 
Gerson,  Causabon,  cardinal  Contarenus,  and  Bellarmine. 4 

§  3.     Presbyterian  ordination  confirmed  by  the  judgment  of 
prelatists  themselves. 

That  this  was  the  opinion  of  the  English  reformers,  we 
have  already  seen,  and  it  cannot  be  questioned.  5  And,  had 
we  space,  we  could  show,  in  addition  to  the  numerous  proofs 

1 )  In  4  Sent.  Dist.  24,  q.  5,  quoted  sab.  de.  Conced.  Cath.  2.  cap.  13.  Con- 
in  ibid,  B.  v.  c.  27.  taren.  Tr.  de.  Eccl.  potest.  Pontiff.  Bel- 

2)  Ibid.  B.  iii.  c.  39.  larum,lib.  iv.  de.  Rom.  Pontiff,  cap.  2. 

3)  See  Baynes's  Diocesan's  Try-  See  many  others  quoted  in  Baxter  on 
all,  p.  47,  and  Whateley's  Kingdom  Episc.  part  ii.p.  232,  and  part  i.  p.  75. 
of  Christ,  pp.  222,  223,  226,  En«.  ed.  5)  See  Lect.  on  Apost.  Succ.  IS. 
Goode'sRuleof  Faith, vol. ii. pp.  78, 79.  Goode's  Div.  Rule  of  Faith  and  Prac- 

4)  Carlet.  on  Jurisd.  p.  7.  Bona-  tice,  vol.  ii.p.  91,  &c.  Keble's  Hooker 
vent,  in  4  Sent.  d.  17,  q.  1.  August.  Pref.  p.  59  -  62.  Jewell  Def.  of  Apol. 
Triumph.  Ii.  de  potest.  Eccl.  q.  1,  a.  1.  part  ii.  c.  5,  div.  1.  See  also  Plea  for 
Gerson  li.de.  pot.  Eccl.  Consid.l.  Cau-  Presb.  pp.  102-106. 


224  PRELATISTS    THEMSELVES  [BOOK    I. 

already  adduced,  that  such  also  has  been  the  opinion  of  the 
best  and  greatest  divines  of  the  English  church.1  '  Where- 
fore,' says  archdeacon  Mason,  with  the  approbation  of  bishop 
Overal,  '  seeing  a  presbyter  is  equal  to  a  bishop  in  the  power 
of  order,  he  hath  equally  intrinsical  power  to  give  orders. 
....  Wherefore,  seeing  a  bishop  and  presbyter  do  not  differ 
in  order,  but  only  in  preeminence  and  dignity,  as  you  your- 
selves acknowledge,  and  seeing  Calvin  and  Beza  had  the 
order  of  priesthood,  which  is  the  highest  in  the  church  of 
God,  and  were  lawfully  chosen,  the  one  after  the  other,  to  a 
place  of  eminency,  and  indued  with  jurisdiction,  derived 
unto  them  from  the  whole  church  wherein  they  lived,  you 
cannot,  with  reason,  deny  them  the  substance  of  the  episco- 
pal office.' 

'  I  have  ever  declared  my  opinion  to  be,'  says  archbishop 
Usher, '  that  episcopus  et  presbyter  gradu  tantum  differunt  non 
ordine,  and,  consequently,  that  in  places  where  bishops  can- 
not be  had,  the  ordination  by  presbyters  standeth  valid,'  and 
'  I  do  profess,  that  with  like  affection,  I  should  receive  the 
blessed  sacrament  at  the  hands  of  the  Dutch  ministers,  if  I 
were  in  Holland,  as  I  should  do  at  the  hands  of  the  French 
ministers,  if  I  were  at  Charenton.'2  He  also  affirms,  that 
if,  in  any  case,  bishops  were  heretical,  and  refuse  to  ordain 
orthodox  ministers,  the  orthodox  presbyters  would  be  forced 
to  ordain  other  presbyters,  and  that  he  would  not  pronounce 
their  ordinations  invalid  or  vain.3  Of  this,  we  have  a  very 
striking  proof  in  the  case  of  Whittingham,  dean  of  Durham. 
Sandys,  archbishop  of  York,  a  second  Laud,  in  1577,  re- 
quired Whittingham,  who  had  been  called  into  the  ministry 
at  Frankfort,  to  give  proof  of  his  ordination,  according  to 
the  legal  form.  The  dean,  denying  his  right,  Sandys  applied 
for  a  royal  commission  to  investigate  the  point  in  dispute. 
These  were  himself,  Hutton,  and  the  earl  of  Huntingdon. 
The  other  two  commissioners  both  declared  themselves  ready 
to  recognise  the  ordination,  dean  Hutton  declaring,  that  '  his 
brother  of  Durham,  had  been  ordained  in    better   sort,  than 

1)  Vindiciae,  pp.    1»">0,    161,   and  71,  and  of  Grotius.  ibid,  p.  73,  and  of 

173  —  176.     See  a  Catena  of  these  di-  bishop   Downame,  ibid,  p.  52,  and  of 

vines,  in  Goode's  Divine  Rule  of  Faith  Usher  in  the  Judgment  of,  by  Bernard, 

and  Practice,  vol.  ii.  ch.  viii.  pp.  72-  appendix,    p.   G.      See    also    Boyse's 

132,  Eng.  ed.     See  numerous  testimo-  Anct.  Episc.  pp.20,  21.  Bishop  Carle- 

nies  in  Baxter  on  Episcopacy,  part  ii.  ton  in  Baxter,  p.  223. 
p.  114.  Also,  in  Pierce's  [>«  l.  oi  Presb.  2)  The  Judgment  of  the  latearch- 

Ordin.  part  ii.  p.  96,  k<".     Powell  on  bishop  of  Armagh,  &c,  by  Dr.   Ber- 

the  Apost.   Succ.  p.  76.     The  Testim.  nard.     Lond.  1657.  pp.  125  — 127, 
of  bishop  Forbes   in  Baxter,  part  i.  p.  3)  See  ibid,  p.  131. 


CHAP.  X.  ]         CONFIRM    PRESBYTERIAN    ORDINATION.  225 

Sandys  himself,  and  than  most  of  the  ministers  of  England.' 
While  the  earl  wrote  to  the  lord  treasurer,  that  '  it  could  not 
but  be  ill  taken  of  all  the  godly  learned,  both  at  home  and 
in  all  the  reformed  churches  abroad,  that  we  should  allow  the 
popish-massing  priests  in  our  ministry,  and  disallow  of  the 
ministers  made  in  a  reformed  church.'  The  result  was,  that 
Sandys  was  forced  to  make  an  apology  to  the  lord  treas- 
urer, and  to  declare,  that  he  did  not  mean  to  '  discredit  the 
church  of  Geneva,'  or  question  the  validity  of  ordination 
conferred  by  presbyters.  And  had  not  Whittingham  sudden- 
ly died,  '  there  is  every  probability,  that  the  case  would  have 
been  decided  in  his  favor.' * 

And  that  such  was  the  judgment  of  the  church,  in  1609, 
is  evident  from  the  fact,  that  the  individuals  then  consecrated 
bishops  for  Scotland,  although  the  question  was  raised,  were 
not  reordained,  though  they  had  received  nothing  but 
presbyterian  ordination.  They  were  thus  English  prelates, 
while,  as  to  orders,  they  were  nothing  more  than  Scottish 
presbyters.2  'Presbyters,'  says  Dr.  Forbes,  of  Aberdeen,  a 
great  stickler  for  prelacy,  '  have,  by  divine  right,  the  power  of 
ordaining  as  well  as  of  preaching  and  baptizing.'3 

'  No  bishop  in  Scotland,'  says  bishop  Burnet,  '  during  my 
stay  in  that  kingdom,  (that  is,  from  1643  to  1688,  a  period  of 
forty-five  years,)  ever  did  so  much  as  desire  any  of  the  pres- 
byters who  went  over  from  the  church  of  Scotland,  to  be 
reordained.'4  '  The  archdean  of  St.  Andrews,'  says  the  late 
prelate  Walker,  '  whose  name  was  Waddel,  was  a  presbyte- 
rian minister  before  the   reformation    .  .  .    but   would   not 

submit  to  be  episcopally  ordained his  scruples,  and 

the  scruples  of  many  in  similar  circumstances,  were  respected, 
and  his  clerical  character  recognised  without  the  episcopal 
ordination.'5 

Bishop  Cosins  testifies  to  the  same  thing.  '  If  at  any 
time,'  says  he,  'a  minister  so  ordained  in  these  French 
churches,  came  to  incorporate  himself  with  ours,  and  to  re- 
ceive public  charge,  ...  as  I  have  known  some  of  them  to 
have  done  of  late,  (the  end  of  the  seventeenth  century,)  and 

1)  See   Dr.   Taylor's  (of  Dublin     Hist,  of  Presb.  p.  327.     Colliers  Cb. 
University)  Biogr.  of  the  Age  of  Eliz-     Hist.  torn.  ii.  p.  702. 

abeth  vol.  ii.  pp.  71,  73,  74.  3)   Ch.  xi.  in  Jus.  Div.  Min.  part 

2)  See  in  ibid,  p.  135.     Bancroft,     ii.  p.  132. 

on  this  occasion,  justified  his  opinion  4)  Vind.  of  the  Ch.  of  Scotl.  pp. 

by  examples  from  antiquity,  and  all  ac-     84,  85. 

quiesced  in  his  opinion.     Courayer's  5)   Charity  Serm.  in  behalf  of  the 

Def.  of  Eng.  Ordin.  p.  22.     Heylin's     Gaelic  Ep.  Soc.  1631,  in  Presb.  Rev. 

IS  12,  p.  8. 

29 


226  THE    ENGLISH    ORDINATIONS    EFFECTED  [BOOK  I. 

can  instance  in  many  before  my  time,  our  bishops  did  not 
reordain  hirn  before  they  admitted  him  to  his  charge,  as  they 
must  have  done  if  his  former  ordination  in  France  had  been 
void.' l 

Bishop  Croft,  in  his  True  State  of  the  Primitive  Church, 
has  these  remarkable  words:2  'And  now  I  pray  give  me 
leave  to  examine  a  little  Petavius's  rare  conceits,  which  he 
conceives  will  settle  all  former  objections,  and  will  meet  with 
no  new  ones.  He  confesses  the  presbyters  of  the  apostles' 
times  were  all  of  one  order,  namely,  bishops ;  because  the 
pastors  of  each  congregation  might  perform  those  several  acts 
he  mentions,  which  a  bare  presbyter  is  not  capable  of.  And 
why  not  capable  of  them  ?  how  doth  he  prove  this  ?  He 
brings  not  one  tittle  of  proof  for  this  out  of  scripture,  where 
there  are  good  proofs  to  the  contrary.  St.  Peter,  and  St.  John, 
presbyters,  could  do  all  these,  and  more  ;  ergo  presbyters  are 
capable  of  all.  But,  saith  he,  '  the  apostles  were  bishops 
also  ; '  '  also '  is  impertinent,  as  signifying  somewhat  else, 
whereas  I  say  and  prove  it  is  one  and  the  same  order,  only 
another  name.  It  lies  upon  him  to  prove  this  difference  of 
orders  ;  and  how  doth  he  prove  it  ?  Because  presbyters  can- 
not do  the  acts  of  a  bishop.  Why,  this  is  the  thing  in  ques- 
tion ;  and  thus  he  runs  round  to  prove  this  by  that,  and  that 
by  this,  and  not  one  tittle  out  of  scripture  for  either.  I  know 
full  well  of  several  canons  of  councils,  made,  some  at  one 
time,  some  at  another;  ihe  bishops  reserved  many  things  to 
themselves,  whereof  most  of  them  had  been  practiced  former- 
ly by  presbyters,  and  the  canons  were  made  to  prevent  the 
like  for  the  future  ;  for,  had  there  not  been  such  a  practice, 
there  had  been  no  need  of  such  canons,  whereby  they  reserv- 
ed these  things  unto  themselves,  and  for  their  own  greatness 
would  needs  persuade  the  world  that  presbyters  were  not 
capable  of  them.  This  being  so,  I  desire  to  know  who.  alter 
the  apostles'  days,  began  this  new  kind  of  ordination  o(  pres- 
byters, or  elders.  Not  bishops  ;  the  apostles  ordained  none 
such.  Who  then  ?  and  by  what  authority  was  this  new  order 
setup?  The  scripture  mentions  it  not ;  when  and  by  whom 
came  it.  then  !  \  very  bold  undertaking  without  scripture, 
or  apostolical  practice.9 

And  that  all  the  outcry  now  made  about  the  invalidity 
and  danger  of  presbyterian  ordination  is  mere  cant,  for  the 
sake  of  upholding  ihe  hierarchy  by  an  ad  terrorem  appeal  to 

1)  Sep  Presb.  Rev.  Ap.  L842,  p.  9.  2)  Scott's  Coll.  of  Tr.  vol.  vii.  pp. 

I  ;ind  301. 


CHAP.  X.]  BY    LAYMEN    AND    WOMEN.  227 

the  fears  of  the  ignorant,  is  manifest  from  the  fact,  that  all 
ordinations  in  the  anglican  church  are  directed  by  laymen, 
and  even,  as  at  this  time,  by  lay  women.  One  of  their  own 
selves  shall  be  witness  against  them,  the  able  author  of 
'  Christianily  Independent  of  the  Civil  Government,'  who  is, 
we  believe  from  internal  evidence,  archbishop  Whateley,  and 
from  his  own  assurance  '  an  episcopalian.'  He  says,1  '  but  it 
may  be  more  to  the  purpose,  to  inquire  what  spiritual  author- 
ity the  king  of  Great  Britain  actually  exercises  ?  Does  he 
not  virtually  ordain  bishops  ?  And  is  not  ordination  a  spirit- 
ual function  ?  I  am  not  speaking  of  the  appointment  to  a 
particular  see  of  one  who  is  already  a  bishop ;  that  is  no  ex- 
ercise of  spiritual  authority,  any  more  than  the  institution  to 
a  particular  benefice  of  one  already  a  minister,  but  of  the 
determination  who  shall  be  a  bishop.  If  the  patron  of  a  ben- 
efice had  power  to  present  a  layman,  and  to  compel  the  bishop 
to  ordain  him  priest,  this  would  surely  be  a  virtual  ordination 
by  the  patron ;  and  the  case  I  am  considering  is  parallel  to 
that,  unless  it  be  said,  that  whoever  is  fit  to  be  a  priest,  is 
necessarily  lit  to  be  a  bishop,  in  which  case  the  very  notion 
of  ordination  would  be  nugatory,  since  you  might  as  well 
talk  of  ordaining-  a  man  lecturer,  or  prebendary.  It  may  be 
said,  that  the  chapter,  a  clerical  body,  are  the  electors  of  a 
bishop,  and  the  bishops  his  ordainers,  and  I  grant  that  this 
makes  his  ordination  real  and  valid  ;  but  does  not  the  compul- 
sion under  which  this  is  done  imply  an  interference  of  the 
civil  magistrate  in  spirituals  ?  And  is  not  this  an  encroach- 
ment on  the  kingdom  which  is  not  of  this  world  ?  If  the 
pope  had  power  to  determine  who  should  and  who  should 
not  be  admitted  to  holy  orders  within  these  realms,  would 
not  the  pope  be  the  spiritual  governor  of  the  churches  there 
existing  ?  There  is  something,  I  think,  strained  and  fanciful 
in  the  application  of  the  term  simony  to  the  sale  of  benefices, 
since  it  is  not  a  spiritual  office,  but  a  temporal  endowment 
that  is  sold.  But  there  is  something  that  does  remind  one 
of  Simon  Magus  in  saying,  '  I  will  give  the  church  secular 
power,  and  wealth,  on  condition  that  you  will  let  me,  indi- 
rectly if  you  will,  but  in  effect,  ordain  bishops  ;  if  you  will 
let  me  say  to  whomsoever  I  will,  not  immediately  indeed, 
but  by  compelling  another  to  say  it,  '  receive  the  Holy  Ghost 
for  the  office  of  a  bishop.'  '  He  offered  them  money,  saying, 
'  Give  me  also  this  power,  that  on  whomsoever  I  lay  my 

1)  P.  107,  N.  Y.  ed.  and  p.  121. 


228  PRESBYTERIAN    ORDINATION    SUSTAINED  [BOOK    I. 

hands,  he  may  receive  the  Holy  Ghost.'  Thy  money  perish 
with  thee  !  tliou  hast  no  part  nor  lot  in  this  matter.' 

'  But  it  may  be  said,  the  chapter,  or  the  bishop  may  refuse 
to  listen  to  the  royal  recommendation.  True,  and  I  hope 
they  will,  if  ever  the  king  should  recommend  an  improper 
person  ;  but  they  are  punishable  for  it  by  law.  They  have 
no  legal  power  to  refuse.  A  protestant  in  Spain  may  defy 
the  pope,  if  he  is  willing  to  be  burnt  for  it.  Nero  allowed 
the  christians  the  option  of  obeying  him  in  religious  matters, 
or  of  suffering  punishment ;  because  this  is  an  option  which 
no  one  can  take  away.' 

Again :  '  An  English  bishop  did  not  ordain  an  Ameriean 
to  officiate  in  a  country  not  under  British  dominion,  without 
asking,  and  obtaining  permission  of  his  government,  which 
had  just  as  much  to  do  with  the  business  as  the  government 
of  Abyssinia.' 

Again,  at  p.  170 :  '  But  no  royal  recommendation  should 
be  allowed  to  determine  who  should  be  ordained  bishop,  un- 
less you  come  to  the  conclusion,  and  openly  proclaim  it, 
that  a  bishop  has  no  spiritual  office,  distinct  from  that  of  the 
presbyter,  and  consequently  that  the  ordination  of 
the  bishop  is  a  nullity.'  So  much  for  these  boasted  an- 
glican  ordinations,  as  estimated  even  by  an  archbishop,  or, 
at  least,  an  episcopalian. 

§  4.     Presbyterian  ordination  is  sustained  by  the  universal 
judgment  of  the  church. 

But  not  only  is  it  thus  certain  that  ordination  by  presbyters 
has  been  sanctioned  in  many  ways,  and  at  different  times, 
and  that  it  was  the  primitive  order  of  the  church  ;  it  may  be 
further  shown  that,  even  by  the  universal  judgment  of  the 
church,  as  to  what  constitutes  the  essentials  of  ordination,  its 
validity  may  be  fully  sustained,  and  the  futility  of  all  prelat- 
ical  objections  made  manifest,  even  on  their  own  principles. 

And  first,  what,  according  to  the  universal  judgmen'1  of  the 
church,  is  essential  to  a  valid  ordination.  Here  we  shall,  at 
once,  go  to  fountain  authority,  the  learned  work  of  Father 
Courayer,1  and  through  him  to  Morinus  and  .Martene.  Cou- 
rayer warrants  the  application  of  his  -principles  and  maxims 

to  determine  other  facts  thatmighl  happen  of  the  same  kind. '-' 

i)  Defence  of  the  Validity  of  the     Canon,  Reg.  and  libr.  of  St. Genevieve, 
English    Ordinations,   by    the    Rev.     Paris.    London,  L728.    .'il  cd. 
ir  Peter   Francis   Le    Courayer.  '-')  Ibid,  p.  7. 


CHAP.    X.J  BY    THE    UNIVERSAL    CHURCH.  229 

Generally,  then,  he  states,1  that '  at  last  this  was  laid  down  as 
an  undoubted  maxim,  that  those  ordinations,  where  nothing 
essential  is  omitted,  should  be  accounted  valid,  by  reason  of 
the  character  which  is  indelible/  As  to  the  matter  of  ordina- 
tion he  states,2  the  proofs  produced  by  Morinus  have  appeared 
so  convincing  to  all  learned  divines,  that  they  agree  unani- 
mously with  him  in  opinion,  that  the  imposition  of  hands  is 
the  only  essential  matter  of  this  sacrament.  Therefore,  says 
this  learned  writer,  the  school  divines,  being  forced  to  it  at 
last,  they  had  recourse  to  the  imposition  of  hands,  which  alone 
has  the  warrant  of  all  the  fathers,  and  all  the  ancient  rituals, 
both  Greek  and  Latin,  in  its  favor.'  And,  indeed,  though  the 
schoolmen  of  late  years  would  fain  have  either  the  unction 
or  the  imposition  of  the  book  of  the  gospels,  or  even  the 
delivery,  (as  they  called  it,)  of  the  instruments  suitable  to  the 
order  and  dignity  conferred,  (as  Durandus,  bishop  of  Mende, 
thought,)  to  be  looked  upon  as  essential  parts  of  the  matter 
of  this  sacrament ;  yet  all  these  opinions  are  rejected  now  as 
unsustainable,  since  it  is  not  only  easy  to  show  that  the  usage 
of  these  things  hath  neither  been  perpetual  nor  universal  in 
the  church,  but  also  that  the  scripture  mentions  only  imposi- 
tion of  hands.' 

He  lays  it  down,  therefore,  as  '  a  certain  maxim,  that  may 
serve  as  a  principle  in  the  determination  of  this  point,'3  that 
'  the  imposition  of  hands  is  the  only  essential  matter  of  ordi- 
nation.'4   This  conclusion  he  repeatedly  states.5 

And  now,  as  to  the  form  of  ordination,  what  universal 
principle  does  he  lay  down  ?  The  schoolmen  maintained  that, 
as  to  form,  the  words  'receive  thou  the  Holy  Ghost,'  &c. 
were  essential.  '  But,'  says  Courayer,6  'however  general  this 
opinion  has  prevailed,  it  is  very  difficult  to  withstand  the 
reasons  which  Morinus  and  Martene  bring  to  refute  it ;  the 
most  convincing  of  which  is,  that  these  words  were  never  at 
all  in  use  among  the  eastern  christians,  and  the  use  of  them, 
in  the  Latin  church  is  of  a  very  late  date.  '  There  are  no  Latin 
rituals,  of  any  antiquity,'  (says  Morinus,)  '  to  be  met  with, 
that  have  these  words  in  them,  nor  is  there  any  mention  made 
of  them,  even  in  many  of  much  later  times.  It  is  scarce  four 
hundred  years  ago,  since  they  began  to  be  used  among  the 
Latins ;  but,  as  for  the  Greeks  and  Syrians,  they  neither  do  at 

1 )  Ibid,  p.  6.  5)  The  Abbe  Renaudot,  he  claims 

2)  Ibid,  p.  93.  as  agreeing  to  this  principle,  pp.  95, 

3)  P.  92.  241,  fully. 

4)  P.94.  6)  Ibid,  pp.  95-97.  On  page  117,  he 

quotes  in  favor  a  number  of  divines. 


230  PRESBYTERIAN    ORDINATION    SUSTAINED  [BOOK     I. 

present  nor  ever  did  make  use  of  them;  so  that  there  is  no 
reason  for  making  them  of  the  substance  of  ordination.'  Mar- 
tene  is  of  the  same  sentiments  upon  this  subject  with  the 
learned  Morinus.  These  assertions  are  supported  by  all 
manner  of  proofs  that  can  be  desired,  in  a  case  of  this  nature  ; 
for  of  all  the  Oriental  and  Latin  rituals  published  by  Morinus, 
Mabillon,  and  Martene,  there  are  not  above  two  or  three, 
and  those  modern  enough,  in  which  these  wTords  are  con- 
tained. 

'  Nor  is  it  any  more  difficult  to  show  that  the  essence  of  the 
form  of  ordination  is  not  annexed  to  any  stated,  fixed,  and 
uniform  prayers  in  all  churches.  The  bare  looking  into  the 
ancient  pontificals  and  rituals  of  different  churches,  demon- 
strates it.  The  prayers  contained  in  the  Greek  rituals  are 
different  from  those  wTe  see  in  the  Oriental  and  Latin  rituals; 
and  even  among  the  Latin  ones,  though  a  greater  uniformity 
be  observed  in  them,  yet  there  are  differences  enough  to  be 
found  to  warrant  this  conclusion,  that  though  tiny  were  all 
directed  to  the  same  end,  yet  every  church  had  the  liberty  of 
determining  itself  as  to  the  particular  form  of  words  it  would 
use  preferably  to  any  other.'  '  We  may  say,  therefore,  in 
general,  that  the  invocation  of  the  Holy  Ghost  upon  the 
bishop  elect,  makes  the  form  of  ordination  ;  and  does,  jointly 
with  the  imposition  which  accompanies  it,  of  course,  consti- 
tute properly  what  we  call  the  sacrament  of  ordination.' 

And  now  as  to  the  ordainers.  Our  author  supposes  that 
Cranmer,  and  the  other  prelates  and  divines  associated  with 
him,  were  pure  ' presbyterians,'  and  designed  'to  extinguish 
episcopacy.'  He  shows  that,  even  on  this  ground,  their  ordi- 
nations were  valid, and  for  this  he  gives  the  following  maxims 
or  principles.1  '  The  first  reason,  almost  generally  now 
received  in  the  schools  is,  that  the  inward  intention  of  the 
priest  has  no  manner  of  influence  upon  the  validity  or  inva- 
lidity of  a  sacrament  All  that  is  required  is.  to  do  as  the 
church  docs,  and  that  is  performed  when  all  the  essentia] 
parts  of  a  rite  prescribed  by  the  church  is  complied  with, 
which  is  per  modum  religiosa  ceremonke,  as  the  schools 
express  it.'  '  A  second  reason,  and  it  is  what  the  church  founds 
her  opinion  upon  in  prohibiting  tin1  repetition  of  those  sacra- 
ments which  Btamp  a  character  is.  that  the  intention  not  being 
made  manifest,  the  outward  behavior  can  only  be  judged  of. 
It  matters  not  whether  the  bishop  or  priest  privately  makes 
a  jest  of  the  sacraments  which  he  administers,  ii  is  no  matter 

1)  Ibid,  pp.  L58-181. 


CHAP.  X.]        BY  THE  UNIVERSAL  CHURCH.  231 

if  he  believes  them  to  want  force  and  virtue;  his  own  thoughts 
neither  make  them  valid  nor  invalid.  It  is  the  execution  of 
our  Saviour's  commands,  and  a  compliance  with  the  essential 
parts  of  a  rite  practiced  in  the  church,  which  renders  a  conse- 
cration effective,  or,  if  you  please,  imprints  a  character.'  'A 
third  reason,  which  may  serve  to  prove  that  the  validity  of  the 
ordinal  does  not  depend  upon  the  erroneous  opinions  main- 
tained by  those  who  composed  it,  is,  that,  supposing  the  changes 
made  did  not.  take  away  from  the  substance  of  the  form;  that 
is  to  say,  the  essence  of  the  prayers  which  compose  the 
ordinal,  which  is  indeed  the  fact,  then  it  is  still  to  be  looked 
upon  as  the  work  of  the  church,  and  in  some  sort  to  intend  to 
do  the  same  as  the  church  intends,  notwithstanding  the  changes 
and  alterations  produced  in  the  ceremonial  part.'  '  These 
reasons  are  supported  by  facts,  and  by  the  example  of  the 
ancient  church.  It  does  not  appear  that  ever  the  validity  or 
the  invalidity  of  sacraments  was  determined  by  the  opinions 
of  those  who  drew  up  the  forms  whereby  they  were  conveyed, 
and  regard  was  only  had  to  the  substance  of  the  form,  and  to 
the  manner  in  which  it  was  expressed.'1 

But  further,  Courayer  shows  that  the  same  principles  apply 
to  all  the  sacraments.2 

Taking,  therefore,  these  principles  as  our  guide,  we  must 
necessarily  conclude  that  presbyterian  ordinations  are  valid 
according  to  the  universal  judgment  of  the  church.  As  to 
matter,  they  contain  imposition  of  hands.3  As  to  form,  they 
are  always  conferred  by  prayer  for  the  Holy  Ghost,  to  be 
given  to  the  individuals  ordained.  And  as  to  the  ordainers, 
they  are  not  invalidated  by  the  fact  that  they  are  presby- 
terians,  nor  is  their  act  in  any  way  nullified.  Moreover,  our 
baptisms  have  never  been  questioned,  and  since  orders  are 
to  be  eslimated  by  the  same  rule,  these  cannot  be  doubted. 

It  is,  however,  objected,  that  our  ordinations  imply  opposi- 
tion to  the  authority  of  the  church,  and  on  this  account  become 
invalid.  Father  Courayer  answers,4 '  it  has  been  demonstrated 
that  the  change  which  was  made  in  the  form  of  ordination, 
has  nothing  essential  in  it,  and  does  not  affect  the  substance 
of  it.'  'This  form  is  not,  as  it  is  supposed,  intended  as  an 
opposite  form  to  that  of  the  church,  but  on  the  contrary,  to 

1)  A  host  of  authorities  maybe  2)  See  p.  162,  of  the  work  refer- 

seen  quoted  in  the  Corpus  Juris  Ca-  red  to,  note,  also  p.  292  of  the  same 

nonicum  Decret.  parti.dist.  68,  p.  19S.  work. 

Prague,  1728.    Fol.    to  show   that    a  3)  Form  of  Government,  cli.  xv. 

person  once  consecrated  to  any  order,  §  14,  pp.  443,  444. 
even  though  by  one  not  a  bishop,  or  in-  4)  Ibid,  pp.  163, 164. 

validly,  must  not  be  again  ordained. 


232  PRESBYTERIAN    ORDIXATION    SUSTAINED         [BOOK    I. 

restore,  as  much  as  possible,  the  simplicity  the  church  for- 
merly practiced  in  the  dispensation  of  the  sacraments.' 

It  is  further  objected,  that  we  are  in  a  state  of  schism, and  that, 
therefore,  our  ordinations  are  null  and  void.  Courayer  replies,1 
'  When  it  is  further  said,  that  the  prelates  and  divines,  who 
drew  up  the  new  ordinal,  are  not  to  be  deemed  as  acting  in 
the  name  of  the  church,  because  they  had  declared  war  against 
her  ;  this  reproach  is  not  particular  to  the  English,  it  bears 
generally  upon  all  those  who  have  separated  themselves  from 
the  church,  by  heresy  or  schism;  and,  if  the  same  reason  has 
not  invalidated  all  the  sacraments  from  being  allowed,  which 
they  administered,  preserving  the  matter  and  the  essential  form, 
the  same  justice  ought  to  be  allowed  the  English,  who,  not- 
withstanding their  schism,  have  preserved  all  the  essential  parts 
of  ordination.'  Again,  he  asks, 'granting  that  we  are  in  a  state 
of  schism,-  how  is  it  proved  from  thence  that  the  sacrament 
is  null,  which  such  a  church  administers?  There  can  be  no 
nullity,  but  for  one  of  these  two  reasons.  Either  that  schism 
nullifies  all  sacraments  administered  out  of  the  church,  or  else 
that  the  changes  introduced  by  the  schism  affect  the  substance 
of  the  sacraments.  The  first  reason  is  false,  and  disavowed 
by  all  catholic  divines.  And  I  have  proved  the  falsehood  of 
the  second,  by  making  it  as  clear  as  noonday,  that  the  Eng- 
lish have  preserved,  in  their  form,  all  that  was  ever  reputed 
essential.' 

Is  it  still  objected,  that  our  ordinations  arc  performed  con- 
trary to  the  authority  of  the  Romish  and  English  churches? 
Courayer  replies,15  'that  each  church,  and  even  the  church  of 
Rome,  has  no  right  to  make  other  churches  submit  to  her  own 
proper  discipline,  as  it  is  proved  at  large  by  the  author  of  the 
new  treatise  concerning  the  authority  of  the  pope,  printed  at 
the  Hague  in  1720.  In  short,  however  jealous  the  popes  may 
have  been  to  maintain  their  authority, the  more  prudent  have 
been  so  moderate  as  to  Leave  particular  churches  at  their  lib- 
erty to  regulate  their  own  discipline;  nay,  even  when  they 
might  have  prescribl  d.'  '  The  council  of  Trent,'  he  adds,1 
'only  refused  to  acknowledge  such  a  power  to  be  lodged  in 
particular  pastors.'  k  Bui  I  affirm,  moreover, thai  it  is  not  ab- 
solutely true,  that  ihe  church  of  Rome  has  always  a  light  to 
oblige  particular  <  hurches  to  observe  the  discipline  established 
in  the  rest  of  the  church.'  '  Mm  if  these  churches  are  obliged 
for  good   reasons   to  make   alterations  in  important  points   of 

1)  P\  165.  3)   P.  179. 

2)  P.  IT:..  1)    Pp.  1-1,  185. 


CHAP.  X.]  BY    THE    UNIVERSAL  CHURCH.  233 

discipline,  I  do  not  see  wherein  the  church  of  Rome  can 
oblige  them  to  conform  to  the  rest.'  And  even  had  the  church 
of  Rome  or  England  this  power,  what  then  ?  '  Whether,' 
says  Courayer, l '  the  church  of  Rome  has  power  or  no,  to  make 
particular  churches  submit  to  the  discipline  universally  estab- 
lished, yet  it  suffices,  at  present,  that  this  power  which  we  seem 
to  allow  her  does  not  give  her  any  right  to  make  those  sacra- 
ments null,  wherein  there  have  been  no  alterations  made,  but 
in  things  not  determined,  and  where  all  things  have  been  pre- 
served that  have  been  reputed  essential  in  the  church.' 

Is  it  still  urged,  that  for  our  form  of  ordination  no  precedent 
can  be  found  in  any  ancient  ordinal  or  form,  Courayer  re- 
plies,2'lastly,  another  reason  which  gives  yet  a  greater  force 
to  the  three  former,  is,  that  it  appears  evidently  by  ancient 
monuments,  that  there  were  no  liturgies  or  written  forms  for 
the  administration  of  the  sacraments  used  in  the  church  before 
the  fifth  century.' 

Is  it  still  further  urged,  that  we  are  actually  separated  from 
the  Romish  and  English  churches,  as  the  latter  church  is  from 
the  former,  Courayer,  after  showing  the  diversified  forms  of 
ancient  ordinals,  remarks,3  '  but  that  which  is  of  most  impor- 
tance to  observe,  is,  that  these  alterations  which  appear  so  es- 
sential, were  made  by  sects  separated  from  the  catholic  church  ; 
whose  power  was  never  disputed  to  make  these  changes,  and 
whose  consecration  was  never  reputed  null  and  invalid.  The 
learned  are,  indeed,  agreed,  that  these  sects  were  separated 
irom  the  catholic  church  when  they  drew  up  their  liturgies.' 
'  If  we  proceed  from  the  form  of  administering  the  eucharist, 
to  that  of  ordination,  we  shall  discover  as  little  uniformity  be- 
tween the  ordinations  of  the  Greeks  and  the  Latins,  and  the 
ordinations  of  the  Syrians,  as  well  Nestorians  as  Eutychians, 
and  the  Coptics,  and  this  without  any  body's  ever  disputing 
the  ordination  of  all  these  sects.' 

And  is  it  objected,  that  presbyterian  ordination  is  actually 
contrary  to  the  ecclesiastical  canons,  Courayer  tells  our  ob- 
jectors,4 that,  in  ordination,  it  is  known  how  rigid  and  strict 
the  ecclesiastical  laws  are,  that  require  three  bishops  for  the 
consecration  of  a  bishop.  This  law  is  at  least  as  ancient,  as 
genera],  and  as  rigid  as  those  which  prescribe  the  unctions, 
and  the  other  ceremonies  which  accompany  ordination.  Nev- 
ertheless, in  an  hundred  instances,  when  necessity  required, 
the  ordinations  of  one  alone  have  been  received  as  good,  which 

1)  Pp.  186  and  187.  3)  Pp.  194-196  :  see  also  292. 

2)  P- 189.  4    Pf381  . 

30 


234  PRESBYTERIAN    ORDINATION  [BOOK  I. 

had  been  rejected  as  null,  if  the  neglect  of  this  law  had  given 
room  to  believe  that  the  intention  of  the  consecrators  was  not 
the  same  with  that  of  the  church.'  Neither  is  this  to  be  pre- 
sumed contrary  to  the  authority  of  the  church,1  '  since  in  effect 
it  cannot  be  imagined  a  sacrament  conferred  in  heresy  is  val- 
id, but  for  this  reason ;  that  it  is  supposed  what  is  done  in 
heresy  is  in  consequence  of  the  power  of  the  church,  which 
an  error  does  not  suspend.  But  if  the  profession  of  an  error 
cannot  suspend  the  power  of  the  church,  the  church  herself 
cannot  put  a  stop  to  her  proper  power,  and  refuse  to  ac- 
knowledge for  her  own  work  what  was  performed  out  of  her 
bosom.  The  author  asserts  it,  and  I  know  not  how  it  can  be 
disputed  with  him.' 

To  conclude,  therefore,2  '  reordinations  have  always  been 
odious  in  the  church  ;  and  to  justify  them  it  must  appear,  cith- 
er that  the  nullity  be  evident,  or  that  the  doubt  be  solid  and 
founded  upon  weighty  reasons,  or  upon  facts  which  are  im- 
possible to  be  disputed.  Now  there  is  neither  an  evident  nul- 
lity, nor  a  doubt  solid  enough  to  oblige  us  to  reiterate  the  or- 
dinations of  the  English.' 

'  Such  is  the  succession  which  is  preserved  in  the  sects 
which  are  separated  from  the  church.  When  the  Donatists 
made  a  schism,  the  succession  of  their  bishops  was  acknowl- 
edged, they  were  nevertheless  guilty  of  the  same  intrusion 
which  the  English  are  reproached  with ;  they  erected  altar 
against  altar,  they  put  themselves  in  the  place  of  catholic  bish- 
ops, acknowledged  in  them  the  validity  of  the  priesthood,  and 
were  far  from  disputing  their  succession  ;  they  offered  to  give 
place  to  them,  provided  they  would  by  a  reunion  put  an  end 
to  the  schism.'  '  So  that  the  result  of  this  affair  is,  that  there 
has  been  little  uniformity  in  the  church  as  to  this  matter;  and 
that  if  the  principle  received  at  this  time  in  the  catholic 
schools  takes  place,  we  cannot  dispute  with  the  English  the 
validity  of  their  ordinations.' 

§  5.    Presbyterian  ordination  is,  therefore, valid  and  regular. 

Objections  answered. 

From  what  has  now  been  made  to  appear,  the  futility  of 
the  common  objection  of  prelatisis,  that  presbyters  never  hav- 
ing received  the  power  of  giving  ordination,  never  can  impart 
it,  is  manifest.     For  if  the  order  of  the  sacred  ministry  is  one, 

1)   P.  303.  2)  Pp.  306,  320,  and  321;  see  also 

Claude's  Def.  of  the  Reform,  vol.  ii.p. 


CHAP.  X.l  IS    VALID    AND    REGULAR.  235 

however  its  offices  may,  by  human  arrangement,  be  divided  ; 
and  if  that  order  is  instituted  by  Christ,  and  depends  on  his 
authority  for  all  its  power,  and  upon  his  charter  for  all  its  func- 
tions ;  then  all  who  are  introduced  into  that  order  are,  by  vir- 
tue of  Christ's  commission,  clothed  with  all  the  powers  and 
attributes  of  the  ministry.  These  powers  are  derived  from 
Christ  and  not  from  the  ordainers,  who  only  invest  the  elected 
subject  with  them.  Every  presbyter,  therefore,  must  necessa- 
rily possess  the  power  of  ordination  as  much  as  the  power  of 
preaching.  Besides,  this  objection  is  as  fatal  to  the  ordaining 
power  of  bishops  as  of  presbyters.  For  bishops,  in  their  or- 
dination, receive  no  power  to  ordain  other  bishops,  or  arch- 
bishops, and,  therefore,  on  this  rule,  all  such  ordinations  are 
nullities.  The  bishop  received  only  sacerdotal  order,  since 
his  ordainers  had  nothing  else  to  give,  and  had  no  power  to 
confer  on  him  the  power  of  conferring  on  others  the  power 
of  ordination,1  and  the  pope  himself,  is  chosen  and  set  apart 
to  his  office  by  cardinals,  who  are  called  the  presbyters  of  Rome. 
The  ordination  of  presbyterian  ministers  is,  therefore,  scrip- 
tural, valid,  and  regular.  It  is  performed  by  such  bishops  as 
were  instituted  by  the  apostles  and  existed  in  the  apostolic 
churches.  All  bishops,  as  originally  instituted,  had  the  pow- 
er of  ordination,  since  there  were  no  other  ministers  to  per- 
form the  duty;  and  since  no  church  has  any  authority  to  in- 
troduce a  new  order  of  subject  presbyters  without  power  to 
ordain,  it  follows,  that  all  who  are  truly  presbyters  have  full 
authority  to  ordain.  In  ancient  times,  the  pastors  of  all  city 
churches  were  empowered  to  ordain,  and  as  many  of  our 
ministers  occupy  this  position,  they  also  possess  the  same  au- 
thority. In  ancient  times,  country  pastors  were  also  allowed 
to  ordain,  and  therefore  may  our  country  pastors  exercise  the 
same  function.  The  president  of  a  presbytery,  according  to 
all  primitive  custom  may  ordain,  and,  therefore,  may  our  min- 
isters, who  are  all  eligible  to  this  office,  and  do,  in  their  turn, 
occupy  and  fill  it.  Ordination  by  a  presbytery,  is  surely  scrip- 
tural and  apostolical,  and  yet  all  our  ordinations  are  perform- 
ed by  a  presbytery,  and  by  a  presbytery  composed  of  scrip- 
tural bishops.  Besides,  bishops  and  presbyters  are  allowed, 
by  prelatists  themselves,  to  differ  only  in  grade,  and  not  in  or- 
der. But  ad  ordinem  perlinet  ordinare,  non  ad  gradum,  and 
hence,  presbyters  must  possess  the  right  and  power  of  ordina- 
tion. In  this  conclusion,  we  are  sanctioned  by  the  universal 
practice  of  the  church  in  requiring  the  cooperation  of  presby- 

1)  See  Goode'sDiv.  Rule  of  Faith,  vol.  ii.  pp.  78,79. 


2oti  PRESBYTERIAN    ORDINATION    IS  [flOOK    I. 

ters  in  every  ordination.  Again,  they  that  have  the  keys  of 
the  kingdom  of  heaven  must  possess  the  power  of  ordination, 
since  these  keys  were  not  delivered  separately,. but  to  one  and 
the  same  persons;  since  they  included  all  the  authority 
and  power  in  any  way  intrusted  to  the  ministry;  and  since 
there  is  no  other  possible  function  to  which  this  power  might 
be  attributed.  But  as  presbyters  have  been  shown  to  possess 
the  keys,  they  must  be  regarded  as  empowered  to  ordain. 
The  office  of  presbyters  no  one  denies  to  be  of  divine  insti- 
tution. And  when  an  individual  is  duly  qualified  for  that  of- 
fice by  the  gifts  of  God ;  when  he  has  been  elected  and  chosen 
by  the  christian  people  to  minister  to  them  in  holy  things ;  and 
when  he  has  been  set  apart  to  the  work  of  the  ministry  by 
those  ecclesiastical  persons  who  have  authority  in  the  churches 
to  whom  he  is  to  minister;  then  is  that  individual  character- 
ized by  every  scriptural  mark  of  a  true  and  valid  minister. 
And  such  is  every  minister  of  the  presbyterian  church. 

§  6.      Presbyterian  ordination  is  more   valid,  certain,    and 
regular,  than  prelatical  ordination. 

Prelates  shudder  at  the  idea  of  extending  their  charity  so 
far  as  to  believe  that  our  presbyters  are  ministers  at  all,  or  that 
they  can  impart  any  kind  of  ordination.  But  from  what  has 
been  said  it  will  be  manifest,  not  only  that  presbyterian  ordi- 
nation is  valid,  but  that,  when  weighed  in  a  just  balance,  it  is 
immeasurably  superior  to  that  which  is  prelatical.  It  is  so 
because  presbyters,  clothed  with  all  the  powers  granted  to 
them  in  the  presbyterian  church,  in  distinction  from  those 
officers  in  episcopal  churches  called  presbyters,  are  the  true, 
scriptural,  and  primitive  bishops.  This  we  have  already 
established.  Our  opponents  confess,  that  this  is  the  fact. 
Like  them,  they  are  ordained  in  every  city  and  in  every 
church.1  They  have  the  particular  episcopacy  or  oversight, 
rule,  and  instruction  of  all  the  Hock  committed  to  them.8 
Their  churches  arc,  like  every  particular  church  spoken  of  in 
the  whole  New  Testament,  such  single  congregations  as  can 
come  together  into  one  place  for  worship  and  communion.3 
Every  description  given  in  scripture  of  the  duties  and  quali- 
fications of  bishops,  most  fully  and  literally  apply  to  presby- 
terian bishops. '      Presbyters  are  thus  the  true  and  only  scrip- 

it  Tit.  l :  "i,  ami  Arts,  13: 33.  of  evidence,  on  this  point,  in  Baxter  on 

2l   Ads,  20  :  '.'V  Episc.  part  ii.  eh.  in.  pp.  6,  '.  &c. 

3)  1    Cor.  11 :  16, 18,  20, &c,  and  l)  Acts, 20, and  13 : 33 ;  I  Tim. 3, 

It,  19,  &c. ;  Acts,  1 1 :  27.     Sec  a  mass  and  5th  ;  Tit.  1  :  5 ;  1  Pet.  5 :  1-3. 


CHAP.  X.]     MORE  REGULAR  THAN  PRELATICAL.  237 

tural  bishops,  and,  of  course,  prelates  cannot  be  such.  And 
hence  the  ordination  of  presbyters  is  more  truly  scriptural  and 
episcopal  than  that  of  prelates.  For  since  every  society  is 
specified  and  characterized  by  its  officers  and  heads,  and 
since  the  order  of  prelates,  the  order  of  prelatical  presbyters, 
or  half  ministers,  and  the  prelatical  order  of  deacons,  are  all 
alike  unknown  to  scripture,  the  prelatic  church  and  its  ordi- 
nations, must  be  regarded  as  entirely  different  from  those  of 
the  apostolic  churches. 

But  our  presbyters  are  also  the  truly  primitive  bishops, 
while  prelates  can  find  no  prototypes  in  the  first  two  or  three 
centuries,  and  hence  diocesan  bishops,  as  such,  are  usurpers 
and  innovators,  and  have  no  original  power  to  ordain  at  all. 
They  can  only  ordain  as  presbyters,  while  as  prelates  they 
render  their  ordinations  irregular,  and  in  open  contrariety  to 
the  apostolical  and  primitive  order  of  the  church. 

The  primitive  bishop  was  elected  to  his  office  by  the  people,1 
who  were  acquainted  with  his  life,  manners,  and  abilities ; 
whereas  in  the  choice  of  prelates,  the  people  have  no  voice. 
The  charge  of  the  primitive  bishop  was  a  single,  though  often 
numerous  congregation,  whilst  the  charge  of  a  prelate  may 
be  several  hundred.2  In  proof  of  this  position,  it  will  be 
sufficient  to  allege  the  authority  of  Slillingfieet,  when  bishop, 
in  his  sermon  against  Separation.  '  Though,  when  the 
churches  increased,  the  occasional  meetings  were  frequent  in 
several  places,  yet  still  there  was  but  one  church,  and  one 
altar,  and  one  baptistry,  and  one  bishop,  with  many  presby- 

1)  See  this  abundantly  proved  in  copum  eligeret,  hie  modus  fuit  in  usu 
Baxter's  Episcop.  partii.  p.  123,  &rc,  tempore  Chrysostomi,  Ambrosii,  Au- 
and  p.  67,  where  are  many  authorities,  gustini,  Leonis,  Gregorii,  1.  i.  de  Cle- 
Lord  Brooke  on  Episc.  pp.  71,  72 ;  mens,  c.  9.  So  also  Morton,  Apol. 
Smectymnuus,  Lond.  1611,  p.  33.  Cathol.  part  i.  c.  85,  p.  257. 
Bishop  Burnet,  in  his  Vind.  of  the  Ch.  2)  See  this  point  established  at 
of  Scotl.  Conf.  4,  p.  164,  allows  that  length  in  Baxter  on  Episc.  passim, 
this  power  was  taken  from  the  people  Boyse's  Anct.  Episcopacy,  which  is 
in  the  fourth  century.  See  also  full  devoted  to  this  point.  Baynes's  Dio- 
on  in  bp.  Burnet's  Obs.  on  the  first  cesan's  Tryall,  pp.  6,  7,  43;  Goode's 
Canon,  pp.  20-22;  Baxter's  Disput.  Div.  Rule  of  Faith,  vol.  ii.  p.  79; 
on  Ch.  Govt.  pp.  227,  228-231.  In  Boyse's  Anct.  Episc.  pp.  27,28,61, 
his  67th  epistle,  Cyprian  gives  his  86,109,114,120,152.  As  late  as  the 
own  opinion,  and  that  of  a  number  of  4th  Aurelian  Council,  A.  D.  545, 
bishops,  in  which  they  at  length  (Binii  Concil.  torn.  iv.  p.  197,)  it  is  or- 
prove,  that  it  is  the  duty  of  the  people  dained,  that  bishops  shall  be  conse- 
to  withdraw  from  any  bishop,  morally  crated  in  their  own  church,  cui  p raz- 
or otherwise  unfit,  and  to  elect  another  futurus  est?  There  were  no  dioceses 
in  his  stead.  This  right  was  also  se-  in  Scotland,  till  1070.  Broughton's 
cured  to  the  people  by  the  15th  canon  Eccl.  Diet.  vol.  i.  p.  163.  See  on  the 
of  the  7th  general  council.  Cyprian,  primitive  bishop,  also  Campbell's 
ep.  67,  p.  203.  Bellarmine  himself  Eccl.Lect.  lect.  vii.p.  121  ;  Clarkson's 
confesses, '  ut  clerus  et  populus  epis-  Prim.  Episcopacy,  passim. 


23S 


PRESBYTERIAN    ORDINATION    IS 


BOOK    I. 


ters  assisting  him.  Which  is  so  plain  in  antiquity  as  to  the 
churches  planted  by  the  apostles  themselves,  that  none  but 
a  great  stranger  to  the  church  can  call  it  in  question.'1  '  A 
church  and  a  diocese,'  says  archbishop  Whateley,  '  seem  to 
have  been  a  considerable  time  coextensive  and  identical.'2 
Now,  when  we  consider  the  present  character  of  a  pre- 
late's charge,3  we  may  well  say  with  the  above  author, 
'  Episcopalians  have  universally  so  varied  from  the  apostoli- 
cal institution,  as  to  have  in  one  church  several  bishops,  each 
of  whom  consequently  differs  in  the  office  he  holds,  in  a  most 
important  point  from  one  of  the  primitive  bishops,  as  much 
as  the  governor  of  any  one  of  our  colonies  does  from  a  sove- 
reign prince.'4  Bishop  Beveridge,  in  like  manner,  allows 
that  he  could  not  find  anything  about  the  visitations  of  dio- 
ceses before  the  sixth  or  seventh  century.5  That  this  was  the 
character  of  the  primitive  bishop,  as  described  by  Clemens 
Romanus,    Justin    Martyr,    Ignatius,    Polycarp,     Tertullian, 


1)  See  in  Boyse's  Anct.  Episc. 
p.  202. 

2)  Kingdom  of  Christ,  Essay  ii. 
§  20,  p.  131,  Eng.  ed.  'At  first,'  says 
bishop  Burnet,  'every  bishop  had  but 
one  parish.'  '  All  things  continued  thus 
in  a  parochial  government,  till  toward 
the  end  of  the  second  century.'  Vind. 
of  Ch.  of  Scotl.  Conf  4th,  p.  1G3,  ed. 
2d.  Lond.  1724.  The  same  thing 
is  admitted  and  urged  by  Broughton,  in 
hisEccl.  Diet,  torn  i.  pp.  158, 159,  who 
substantiates  his  opinion  by  appealing 
to  many  of  the  fathers.  For  200  years, 
Rome  and  Alexandria  were  the  only 
two  places  that  had  more  than  one 
stated  assembly  in  the  same  place. 
Baxter's  Episc.  p.  17. 

3)  Respecting  the  comparative 
state  of  other  countries  with  our  own 
in  this  respect,  we  give  from  the 
Churchman's  Monthly  Review  the 
following  statement:  Italy,  Sicily, 
Corsica,  and  Sardinia,  with  a  popula- 
tion of  at  least  21  millions,  have  in 
round  numbers  271)  sees.  We,  with 
10  millions  in  England  and  'Wales, 
have  only  26.  Greece,  with  less  than 
a  million  population,  lias  36  Bees, 
France,  before  the  revolution,  had  1  15 
sees,  and  28  millions.  Spam,  60 
bishops,  and  U>  or  L2  millions. — 
Romanists  in  Ireland,  6  1-2  or  7  mil- 
lions, and  30  bishops,  American 
church,  (less  than  a  million,)  has  20 
bishops.  Ancient  Asia  Minor,  about 
twice  as  large  as    England,  had  400 


sees.  From  which  statement  it  will 
appear,  that  a  single  bishop  in  these 
several  countries,  has  had  the  follow- 
ing numbers  committed  to  his  spiritu- 
al charge : 
In  Italy,  Sicily,  Corsica,  and 

Sardinia,  SS,000 

In  Greece,  27,000 

In  France,  before  the  revolu- 
tion, 193,000 
In  Spain,  LS  1,000 
In  America,  50,000 
In  Ancient  Asia  Minor,  80,000 
In  England,  600,000 
The  diocese  of  Lincoln  contains 
1,072  benefices.  If  the  bishop  were 
to  visit  and  preach  in  each  parish  of 
his  diocese  at  the  average  of  four  ev- 
ery week,  which,  it  need  hardly  be 
said,  is  far  too  high  an  average,  con- 
sidering '  that  which cometh  upon  him 
daily,  the  care  of  all  the  churches, \fivc 
years  would  be  required  for  a  circuit 
of  the  diocese  of  Lincoln;  and  if  the 
weekly  average  be  set  at  two,  (which, 
with  the  necessary  deduction  for  the 
parliamentary  and  other  duties  is  fully 
adequate  to  the  powers,  both  physical 
and  mental,  of  ordinary  men,  and  even 
bishops.)  the  visitation  of  this  diocese 
would  occupy  ten  years.  On  the  same 
principle,  the  visitation  of  the  diocese 
of  Norwich,  containing  920  benefices, 
would  occupy  eight  years;  of  Exeter. 
York,  and  Chester,  six,'  &c. 

4)  Ibid,  p.  133. 

5)  Wks.  vol.ii.  p.  98. 


CHAP.  X.]     MORE  REGULAR  THAN  PRELATICAL.  239 

Cyprian,  and  other  writers,  has  been  incontrovertibly  estab- 
lished by  many  writers,  and  will  be  seen  in  our  quotations 
from  the  fathers.1  And  yet  will  high-churchmen  venture  to 
affirm,  that,  '  in  the  most  primitive  ages,  when  as  yet  there 
were  no  christian  princes,  bishops  were  elected  by  the  clergy 
and  people,  in  the  presence  of  the  metropolitan  and  other 
provincial  bishops.'2  So  utterly  regardless  are  they  of  the 
admitted  truth  in  the  case,  when  they  can  impose  on  ignorant 
credulity. 

The  primitive  bishops  were  ordained  by  neighboring  paro- 
chial bishops  or  presbyters,  constituting  a  presbytery  ;  while 
in  the  ordination  of  modern  prelates,  all  such  "bishops  are 
excluded,  and  only  distant  prelates  are  invited  to  assist.  The 
primitive  bishop  administered  all  the  ordinances  to  the  people 
of  his  parish,  and  considered  himself  charged  with  the  over- 
sight of  all  the  particular  souls  that  belonged  to  his  episcopal 
charge,  so  as  to  exercise  a  personal  inspection  over  them.3 
The  modern  prelate,  on  the  contrary,  does  not  and  cannot 
pretend  to  exercise  any  such  oversight,  nor  can  have  any 
personal  acquaintance,  in  many  cases,  with  one  in  a  thousand 
of  those  under  his  charge.  There  is  not  a  prelate  in  exist- 
ence, who  even  attempts  to  discharge  all  the  duties  incum- 
bent upon  a  primitive  bishop.4  The  primitive  bishop  sat 
with  his  presbyters  in  the  same  congregation,  the  deacons 
also  being  present  and  standing.  He  ordinarily  exercised  no 
act  of  ecclesiastical  discipline,  without  the  consent  and  con- 
currence of  all  his  presbyters,  and  in  the  presence  of  his 
flock.5  Nor  did  he  ever  ordain  any  to  any  office  without  the 
assistance  of  his  presbytery.  But  in  all  these  respects  modern 
prelates  are  no  more  like  ancient  bishops,  than  is  the  pope 
like  a  pastor,  or  an  eastern  despot  like  a  patriarchal  chief. 

In  short,  the  primitive  bishop  was  no  more  than  the  pri- 

1)  See  Boyse's   Anct.  Episcopa-  Thorndike  on  Govt,  of  the  Ch.  pp.  63 

cy,  ch.  ii.  pp.   22-211.     He  gives   a  64. 

very  full  collation  of  the  epistles  of  2)  Palmer's  Antiq.  of  the  English 

Ignatius.    As  to  the  Cypnanic  bishop,  Liturgy,  vol.  ii.  p.  287. 
in  particular,  see  Jameson's  Cypria-  3}   See  the    above    authors,    and 

nus  Isotimus,  especially  pp.  448,  452,  especially  as  it  regards  Ignatius. 
453,     461,502-504.         Also,      Causa  4)   See  this  argument  urged,  with 

Episcopatus  Hier.  Lucifuga,  or  a  Con-  overwhelming    force,  by   Baxter    on 

fut.  of  Sage's  Princ.  of  the  Cyprianic  Episc.  part   ii.  ch.   xviii.  and  xix.  p. 

age  ;  4to.  Edinb.  1706.  pp.  274.    Bax-  143,  &c. ;  and  by  a  host  of  authorities 

ter  on    Episc.    part  ii.  ch.  vii.  gives  from  the  ancients,  councils,  &c.  p.  178, 

31  arguments  to  disprove  the  claim  of  &c.  from  the  Reformers,  p.  179;  and 

diocesan  churches,  and  to  show  that  from   other   English   divines,  p.  214. 

they   were  anciently  parochial.      As  Also  in  ch.  xvi.  p.  121,  &c. 
to  the  smallness   and  number  of  the  5)   Caus.  4,  q.  4.     See  full  proofs 

primitive  parishes,  see  Burnet's  Obs.  adduced  by  Burnet,  in  his  Obs.  on  the 

on  the  first   Canon,  pp.  31,  &c.     33.  2d  Canon,  p.  57,  &c. 


240  PRESBYTERIAN    ORDINATION    IS  [l300K   I. 

mus  presbyter,  the  moderator,  or  presiding  presbyter,  having 
no  order,  power,  or  jurisdiction  independent  of,  or  in  superi- 
ority to,  his  fellow-presbyters.1  So  that  the  fourth  council 
of  Carthage,  A.  D.  398,  makes  void  all  sentences  of  bishops, 
which  were  not  confirmed  by  the  presence  of  the  clergy.? 
This  canon  was  also  inserted  in  those  of  Egbert,  who  was 
archbishop  of  York,  in  Saxon  times,  and  afterwards  included 
in  the  canon  law  itself.8  Modern  prelates,  however,  build 
iheir  claims  upon  being  of  an  order  by  divine  right  superior 
to  that  of  presbyters,  and  as  thus  possessing  a  plenitude  of 
prelatical  power  and  grace.  The  primitive  bishop  recog- 
nised presbyters  as  of  the  same  order,  and  having  the  same 
inherent  power,  with  himself;  so  that  in  his  absence,  they 
exercised  all  his  functions,  and  took  entire  oversight  of  the 
church.4  Modern  prelates,  however,  have  utterly  destroyed 
the  original  institution  of  presbyters,  so  that  prelatically  or- 
dained presbyters  are  deprived  of  many  of  the  original 
powers  and  functions  belonging  to  their  office. 

And  thus  does  it  appear,  that  modern  prelates  pervert  the 
original  form,  order,  constitution,  and  design  of  the  church, 
and  of  the  ministry,  and  the  whole  framework  of  ecclesi- 
astical polity.5  They  are  entirely  different  officers  from  the 
primitive  bishops,  claiming  different  powers,  and  discharging 
different  functions.  The  ancient  bishop  was  a  parochial 
presbyter,  having  superintendence  over  a  particular  charge. 
In  some  cases,  he  exercised  his  office  alone,  where  the  extent 
of  his  charge  was  small,  as  in  the  case  of  Gregory  Thauma- 
turgus,6  and  in  other  cases  he  was  the  moderator  of  many 
presbyters  in  the  same  church.7 

Presbyters,  therefore,  have8  'episcopal  ordination,  even 
such  as  the  canons  require,  being  set  apart  by  two   or  three 

1)  See.  ch.  vi.  See  also  Jameson's  vius  in  do.  p.  68;  Cypiian,  Ep.  *;7, 
Sum  of  the  Episcopal  Controversy,  $  2,  with  Marshall's  note.  See  also 
pp.  1  13,  1  1 1.  L52,  155,  ISC.  Cypiian,  ep.  71,  p.  227,  and  ep.  72,  p 

2)  Binii  Concil.  torn.  i.  p.  728,  ',"-'s.  Bishop  Burnet,  in  his  Vind.  of 
canon  23.  See  also  Cyp.  Ep.  46,  ad  the  Ch.ofScotl.conf. 4, most  fully  and 
Comal.  repeatedly  avows   this  opinion.     See 

3)  Spelman's     Concilia,     Lond.  p.    L65,  and   p.    177.   where   he     si 
L639, p.  'J7'), o.3 13;  and  I'sher's  Keduc-      1  acknowledge  bishop  and  presbyter 
tionofEpisc.  pp.  1,  5;  Csboni  Jur.15,  to  be  one  and  the  Bame  office.'  So  also 
q.  7,  cap.  Nullus ;   Decret,  part  ii.  can.  on  p.  181. 

15,  q.  7.     See  also  Smectymnuus,  p.  5)  See  tliis  shown  at  length  in 

38;    Basil,     Epist.   7.r> ;    Anihrosc.    lili.  Baxter's      Episc;      pari  ii.  pp.   85—90, 

x.  ep.  SO;  and  so  Cyril  and  Gregory,  121,  122,  L23,  L25,  L26,  131. 

as  in  ibid.  «'.)  Sec  llovsc's  Ar.ct.    Kpisc.  pp. 

•l)  Thai  tins  is  the  doctrine  of  29  ami  107. 

antiquity,  see  proved  in  Uoodc's  Piv.  7)   Sec  proof  of  this  fact.  ibid. 

Rule   of  Faith,    vol.   ii.    pp.    SG-88 ;  8)   Clarkson's    Prim.    Episc.  pp. 

Dr.  Hammond,  in  Baxter, p.  '.".';  Peta-  231 


CHAP.  X.]      MORE  REGULAR  THAN  PRELATIC.  241 

pastors,  at  least,  who  are  as  truly  diocesans  as  the  ancient 
bishops  for  some  whole  ages.  The  presbyter  bishop  is  also 
elected  by  the  people ;  and  of  old  he  could  never  be,  nor  be 
accounted  a  bishop,  whatever  ordination  he  had,  that  was  not 
so  elected.  And  besides,  he  has  as  large  a  diocese  as  most 
in  the  best  times  of  the  church  ;  and  so  makes  it  his  business 
to  feed  and  rule  the  flock,  and  exercise  the  power  of  the 
keys.'  We  hence  infer,  that  presbyters,  as  they  exist  in  the 
presbyterian  church,  having  all  the  qualities,  powers,  offices, 
functions,  jurisdiction,  and  order,  possessed  by  the  scriptu- 
ral and  primitive  bishops,  are  identical  with  them.  And  if, 
therefore,  the  power  of  ordination  belongs,  by  divine  right, 
to  these  only,  then  it  cannot  belong  by  divine  right  to  pre- 
lates ;  and,  hence,  ordination,  as  performed  by  presby- 
terian ministers,  is  more  regular,  scriptural,  and  primitive 
than  that  of  prelates;  so  that  if  only  one  or  the  other  can  be 
correct,  it  alone  can  be  the  true,  original,  and  proper  ordi- 
nation, 1 

It  will  also  appear,  from  what  has  been  said,  that  the  ordi- 
nation of  presbyterians  is  the  only  episcopal  ordination  to  be 
found  in  the  church,  since  prelates  are  not  bishops,  either 
according  to  the  primitive  or  apostolical  understanding  of  the 
office,  but  are,  in  fact,  archbishops.  So  that  the  true  ques- 
tion between  us  is,  not  as  to  the  validity  of  ordination  by 
bishops,  but  whether  or  not  any  other  than  archbishops  have 
a  right  to  ordain.2  And  to  this  question,  who  can  hesitate  in 
giving  an  immediate  reply. 

1)  See   Baxter  on  Episc.  part  ii.  2)  See  Baxter's   Disput.  on   Ch. 

pp.  227 -232.  Govt.  p.  318. 


31 


CHAPTER   XI. 


ON  DEACONS,  AS    A  THIRD   ORDER   OF  THE   CHRISTIAN 
MINISTRY. 


§  1.   The  ground  assumed  by  prelacy. 

We  have  thus  far,  for  the  sake  of  distinctness,  confined 
our  argument  to  the  claims  of  presbyters  and  prelates.  But 
it  is  necessary  to  remember  that  prelatists  affirm,  that  '  it  is 
evident  to  all  men,  diligently  reading  holy  scripture  and  an- 
cient authors,  that  from  the  apostles'  time  there  have  been 
these  orders  of  ministers  in  Christ's  church  —  bishops,  priests, 
and  deacons.''1  It  is  here,  therefore,  with  all  positiveness  de- 
clared, that  Christ  and  his  apostles  instituted  deacons  as  a  third 
order,  of  ministers,  that  is,  for  cooperating  in  the  work  of 
preaching,  baptizing,  and  other  ministerial  functions.-  Upon 
this  basis,  as  much  as  upon  the  order  of  prelates,  the  exist- 
ence and  stability  of  the  prelatical  sect,  together  with  its  en- 
tire claim  to  the  character  of  a  scriptural  and  apostolical 
church,  is  founded.  If,  therefore,  it  can  be  shown  that  this 
pillar  of  the  hierarchy  is  unsound,  the  whole  fabric  must  be 
abandoned,  since  two  of  its  three  pillars  will  be  cut  from  un- 
der it. 

§  2.   The  deacon,  according  to  scripture,  not  an  order  in  the 
christian  ministry,  but  a  distinct  office. 

All  the  reformed  churches  agree  in  believing  that  the 
scriptures  clearly  point  out  deacons  as  distinct  officers  in  the 
church,  whose  business  it  is  to  take  care  of  the  poor  —  to 
distribute  among  them  the  collections  which  may  be  raised 
for  their  use  —  and  generally  to  manage  the  temporal  affairs 

1)  Pref.   to   Form    and    Order  of  2)  See   Potter  on    Ch.  Govt.  pp. 

making  Bishops,  in  Common   Prayer     48,  49.    Am.  ed. 
Book.     See  also  Laws  and  Canons  of 
the  Prot.  Ep.  Ch. 


CHAP.  XI.]   THE  OFFICE  OF  DEACONS  EXPLAINED.        243 

of  the  church.  They  are  mentioned  as  a  distinct  class  of 
officers  in  the  church  at  Philippi,  (Phil.  1:  1,) — in  1  Tim. 
3  :  8, 12, 13— and  probably  in  1  Peter,  4: 10, 11,  and  Rom.  12: 
6,  7.  Of  their  election  by  the  people,  and  ordination  by 
the  presbytery,  we  have  a  full  account  in  Acts,  6:  1-6. 
Their  character,  and  the  nature  and  design  of  their  office,  must 
therefore  be  drawn  from  this  history,  in  connection  with  the 
qualifications  laid  down  for  their  office  by  the  inspired 
apostles.  Nor  can  there  be  any  hesitation  in  coining  to  our 
conclusion,  since  the  language  in  both  cases  is  clear  and 
explicit. 

The  model  of  the  christian  church  was  formed,  as  we  shall 
see,  upon  the  order  of  the  Jewish  synagogue.  Now  in 
every  synagogue  there  were  parnasin,  or  deacons,  '  or  such 
as  had  the  care  of  the  poor,  whose  work  it  was  to  gather  alms 
for  them  from  the  congregation,  and  to  distribute  it  to  them.'1 
Such  is  the  opinion  of  Lightfoot,  which  he  abundantly  cor- 
roborates by  quotations  from  Jewish  writings.  Similar,  also, 
is  the  judgment  of  bishop  Burnet,  who  says,  'the  charge  of 
the  parnasin,  or  deacons,  was  to  gather  the  collections  of  the 
rich  and  to  distribute  them  to  the  poor.'- 

It  was  evidently  in  accordance  with  this  existing  order,  that 
the  apostles,  by  divine  direction,  instituted  the  office  of  dea- 
cons ;  and  we  may  therefore  expect  to  find  the  duties  as- 
signed to  them  to  be  similar.  This,  accordingly,  is  undoubt- 
edly the  case.  The  reason  given  by  the  apostles  for  the  in- 
stitution was,  that  'it  was  not  reasonable  that  they  should 
leave  the  word  of  God,  (that  is,  the  ministry  of  the  word,) 
and  serve  tables.'  (Acts,  6:  2.)  '  Wherefore,  brethren,' say 
they,  '  look  ye  out  among  you  seven  men  of  honest  report, 
full  of  the  Holy  Ghost  and  wisdom,  whom  we  may  appoint 
over  this  business,  but  we  will  give  ourselves  continually  to 
prayer,  and  to  the  ministry  of  the  word,'  (verses  3,  4.)  Now 
these  tables  must  refer  to  the  supply  of  the  temporal  necessities 
of  the  poor,  out  of  that  common  fund  which  was  committed  to 
the  apostles.  An  evident  inconsistency  or  incongruity  is 
alleged  to  exist  between  the  discharge  of  this  duty  and  the 
ministry  of  the  word,  which  could  not  be  the  case  were  the 
allusion  made  to  the  administration  of  ordinances.  Such 
administration,  prelatists  will  be  the  last  to  think  the  apostles 
would  disparage  and  hand  over  to  an  inferior  order,  espe- 
cially when  there  were  so  many  of  themselves,  besides  the 

1)  Lightfoot's  Works,  vol.  iii.  pp.  2)   Obs.  on  the  2d   Canon,  p.  53. 

189,  268,  and  vol.  viii.  p.  106,  &c.  and  See  also  Riddle's  Christ.  Antiq.  p.  237. 
vol.  xi.  p.  89,  &c.  Mosheim  de  Reb.  Chr.  M. 


244  DEACONS    WERE    NOT    APPOINTED  [BOOK   I. 

presbyters  then  or  shortly  afterwards  ordained,  with  whom 
they  were  associated  as  a  presbytery  in  discharging  all  min- 
isterial duties  to  the  church  at  Jerusalem.1  With  this  most 
explicit  statement  of  the  office  of  deacons,  agree  the  descrip- 
tions given  elsewhere.  The  qualifications  laid  down  in 
1  Tim.  3,  are  precisely,  those  which  the  discharge  of  such 
responsible  and  trusty  services  would  require.  In  Romans, 
12:  6,  7,  the  deaconship  is  immediately  connected  with 
'giving'  and  '  showing  mercy.'2  And  in  like  manner  in  1 
Peter,  4:  10,  11,  a  man  is  to  'exercise  the  office  of  a  deacon 
as  of  the  ability  which  God  giveth '  or  furnisheth,  that  is,  to 
the  full  extent  of  the  supply  furnished  him  in  the  providence 
of  God.3  We  are,  therefore,  told,  that  'they  that  have  used 
the  office  of  a  deacon  well,  purchase  to  themselves  a 
good  degree,'  that  is,  says  Lightfoot,  'a  good  degree  towards 
being  intrusted  with  souls  when  they  have  been  faithful  in 
discharge  of  their  trust  concerning  the  life  of  the  body.'4 
Deacons,  therefore,  were  regarded  as  probationers  for  the 
office  of  the  ministry,  if  found  to  be  suitable  and  worthy ; 
but  they  were  not  considered  to  be  an  order  in  the  ministry. 
The  Holy  Ghost  designed  that  they  should  be  a  seminary  or 
nursery,  out  of  which  the  church  might  be  furnished  with  fit 
persons  for  the  ministry  of  the  word  and  doctrine,  and  in 
which  they  might  be  fully  proved  and  tested  before  admis- 
sion into  this  sacred  office.5  They  were  officers  in  the 
church,  associated  with  the  ministers,  to  attend  to  ihe  interests 
of  the  poor  and  to  the  temporalities  of  the  congregation,  but 
they  were  not,  as  deacons,  partakers  of  the  one  priesthood  or 
ministry  of  the  church.  Even  women  might  be  deaconesses, 
and  as  such  were  ordained,  and  discharged  towards  the  fe- 
male members  of  the  church  all  those  duties  which  the  dea- 
cons performed  towards  the  males.  But,  according  to  apos- 
tolic rule,  women,  we  know,  were  not  permitted  to  teach  in 
the  church,  and  hence  deacons  could  not  have  been  regarded 
as  capable  of  any  of  these  functions. 

§  3.   This  conclusion  sustained  by  eminent  prelatists. 

This  is  the  conclusion  drawn  from  the  scripture  account  by 
the  learned  episcopalian,  Lightfoot,  who  says,  'the  office  of 

1)  See  these  views,  and  the  sub-  ,'f)  Wilson,  ibid,  p.  G.  Scott,  Hen- 
ject  of  the  deacon,  fully  treated  of  in  ry.  Grotius,  Piseator,  and  Calvin  in 
Neander's    History   of  the   Plant,    of    loco. 

Christ,  by  the   Ap.  vol.  i.  ch.  iii.   p.  4)  Works,  vol.  iii.  page  258,  and 

140,  &c.  vol.  xi.  p.  90. 

2)  See  the  original,  and  Wilson  5)  See  Jameson's  Sum  of  the 
on  Deacons.     Philadelphia,  1841,  p.  5.  Episcopal  Controversy,  pp.  94,  95. 


CHAP, 


XI.]  AS    AN    ORDER    OF    MINISTERS.  245 


deacons  was  not  ministerial  or  for  the  preaching  of  the  word, 
but  for  providing  for  the  poor.'1     So  speaks  Mr.  Riddle,  who 
is  also  an  episcopalian,  in  his  learned  work  on  Christian  An- 
tiquities, where  he  says,  'it  does  not  appear  that  they  were 
appointed   to  the  ministry  of  the  word,  but  rather  the  con- 
trary may  be  inferred  from  verse  2  and  verse  4.     Fifthly,  they 
were  not' spiritual   persons,  in   the  ecclesiastical  sense  of  the 
term.'2     'But  can  it  be  imagined,' says  bishop  White,  'that 
an  order  instituted  for  the  purpose  of  serving  tables,  should, 
in  the  very  infancy  of  its  existence,  have  the  office  of  the 
ministry  committed  to  them  ?  ...  All  I  contend  for  is,  that 
at  the  first  institution  of  the  order  there  could  have  been  no 
difference  between  them  and  laymen,  in  regard  to  the  preach- 
ing of  the  word  and  the  administering  of  the  sacraments.'3 
As    to    deacons,  bishop    Croft,  in  his  Naked  Truth,   thus 
delivers  himself:  '  Having  thus   stated  and  united  the  two 
pretended  and  distinct  orders  of  episcopacy  and  presbytery, 
I  now  proceed  to  the  third  pretended  spiritual  order,  that  of 
deaconship.     Whether  this  of  deaconship  be  properly  to  be 
called  an  order  or  an  office,  I  will  not  dispute;  but  certainly 
no  spiritual  order,  for  their  office  was  to  serve  tables,  as  the 
scripture  phrases  it,  which,  in  plain  English,  is  nothing  else 
but  overseers  of  the  poor,  to  distribute  justly  and  discreetly 
the  alms  of  the  faithful ;  which  the  apostles  would  not  trou- 
ble themselves  withal,  lest  it  should  hinder  them  in  the  min- 
istration   of  the  word  and  prayer.     But  as  most  matters  of 
this  world,  in  process  of  time,  deflect  much  from  the  original 
constitution,  so  it  fell  out  in  this  business;  for  the  bishops 
who  pretended  to  be  successors  to  the  apostles,  by  little  and 
little  took  to  themselves  the  dispensation  of  alms,  first  byway 
of  inspection  over  the  deacons,  but  at  length  the  total  man- 
agement, and  the  deacons  who  were  mere  lay-officers,  by 
degrees  crept  into  the  church  ministration,  and  became  a 
reputed  spiritual  order,  and  a  necessary  degree  and  step  to 
the  priesthood,  of  which  I  can  find  nothing  in  scripture,  and 
the  original  institution,  not  a  word  relating  to  any  thing  but 
the  ordering  of  alms  for  the  poor.     And  the  first  I  find  of 
their  officiating  in  spiritual  matters,  is  in  Justin  Martyr,  who 
lived  in  the  second  century.'4 

The  same  testimony  is  given  by  Hadrian  Saravia,  who 
describes  the  deaconship  as  '  having  for  its  object  provision 

1)  Works,  vol.  viii.  page  106.  4)  Scott's  Coll.  of  Tr.  vol.  vii.pp. 

2)  Christian  Antiquities,  p.  238.       307,  30S. 

3)  See  Dr.  Wilson's  Memoirs  of 
Bishop  White,  Letter  to  Bishop  Ho- 
bart,  p.  365. 


\ 


246  DEACONS    WERE    NOT ' APPOINTED  [BOOK  r. 

for  ihe  corporeal  wants  of  the  present  life.' !  '  The  early 
church,'  he  adds,  '  following  the  examples  of  the  apostles, 
employed  deacons  in  the  ministrations  also  of  the  word  and 
sacraments.  For  it  was  feared  lest  their  functions  should 
fall  into  contempt  by  appearing  to  be  merely  a  stewardship 
in  things  temporal.  ...  In  order  then  to  increase  their  dig- 
nity, they  were  authorized  to  read  the  gospel  to  the  people 
i;  and  deliver  the  cup,  &c.'3  Archbishop  Wake  concurs  in  the 
same  views  with  the  preceding  writers,3  and  so  also  arch- 
bishop Whateley,4  and  archbishop  Potter,  who  says,  'dea- 
cons are  not  ordained  to  be  pastors  of  the  flock  of  Christ, 
but  only  to  minister  to  the  pastors,'  and,  therefore,  '  preach- 
ing in  the  public  congregation,  which  does  inseparably  ac- 
company the  care  of  souls,  cannot  properly  be  any  part  of 
their  office.'5  He  also  affirms  the  same  thing  as  it  regards 
baptizing,  from  which  also  he  excludes  them.6  The  same 
opinion  is  openly  avowed  by  Mr.  Hinds  of  Oxford,7  by  the 
Oxford  Tractators,8  by  bishop  Beveridge,9  and  by  the  author 
of  Spiritual  Despotism.30  Mr.  Palmer, in  his  recent  elaborate 
Treatise  on  the  church,  is  under  the  necessity  of  admitting  as 
much.  '  The  office  of  deacons,'  says  he,  '  seems  at  first  to 
have  related  chiefly  to  the  administering  of  relief  to  the 
poorer  brethren.'  He  only  pleads  that  the  church  is  justified 
'  in  permitting  deacons,  in  case  of  necessity,  both  to  preach 
and  to  baptize.'11  '  They  are  not  qualified  to  administer  the 
sacrament  of  the  holy  eucharist,  and  other  high  offices  of  the 
ministry.'12  They  are  'limited  to  duties  of  a  temporal,  or 
at  least  a  very  inferior  character.  They  are  only  permitted 
to  baptize  and  preach  ;  the  church  has  before  now  given  the 
same  permission  to  laymen  in  cases  of  necessity ;  they  are 
not  given  the  care  of  souls,  or  any  of  the  other  higher  offices 
of  the  ministry.' 13  '  It  does  not  seem  either  by  the  forms  of 
ordination,  or  by  the  ritual,  that  the  church  formally  invests 
deacons  with  the  power  of  celebrating  divine  service  without 
a  presbyter,  or  performing  the  rites  of  marriage,  benediction 
of  women  after  child-birth,  visitation  of  the  sick,  or  burial  of 
the  dead.' li 

1)  On  the  Priesthood,  p.  48.  8)  Oxford   Tracts,  vol.    i.  p.  31, 

2)  Ibid,  page  95.  Am.  ed. 

3)  Apost.  Fathers  Prel.  Disc.  §  15,  9)  See  also  Beveridge's    Works, 
p.  30.  vol.  ii.  p.  131. 

4)  Kingdom  of  Christ,  Essay  ii.  10)  App.    to    §    4,  pp.    433,    434. 
4  20,  p.  131,and$  11, p. 91,  Eng.ed.  '  Eng.  ed. 

5)  On  Ch.  Govt.  pp.  208,  209.  11)  Vol.  ii.  part  vi.  ch.  iii.  p.  405, 
G)  Thid,p.  228.                                    Ens;,  ed. 

7)  History  of  the  Rise  and   Pro-  12)  Ibid,  p.  408. 

gress  of  Christianity,  vol.  i.  pp.  218,  13)  Ibid,  p.  375. 

220.  14)  P.  40S. 


CHAP.    XI.]  AS    AN    ORDER    OF    MINISTERS.  247 

§  4.      This  conclusion  sustained  also  by  the  Romish  churchy 
by  the  primitive  fathers,  and  by  general  custom. 

The  same  is  the  view  taken  of  this  office  by  the  Romish 
church.1  Van  Espen  says,  that  in  the  Roman  churches,  '  as 
far  as  concerns  deacons,  the  modern  discipline  has  so  declined, 
that  scarcely  any  office  is  left  to  the  deacons,  except  the  min- 
istry of  the  altar.  And  even  in  this,  the  ministry  of  the  dea- 
cons is  often,  (especially  in  cathedral  and  collegiate  churches,) 
supplied  by  presbyters ;  so  that,  at  last,  it  has  come  to  this, 
that  deacons  are  not  ordained  to  discharge  the  duties  of 
deacons,  but  to  ascend  by  the  deaconate,  as  a  step  to  the 
presbyterate.  Whence,  also,  no  one  is  ordained  deacon  in 
order  that  he  may  continue  in  that  office,  but  in  order  that 
he  may  be  promoted  to  the  presbyterate,  when  the  canonical 
interval  of  time  has  elapsed.  Whether  this  be  entirely  con- 
formable to  the  will  and  intention  of  the  church,  let  the 
bishops  consider.'2 

A  reference  to  the  primitive  church  and  fathers  will  con- 
firm these  conclusions.  Deacons  are  frequently  referred  to 
by  Ignatius,  but  merely  in  that  general  way  in  which  they 
are  spoken  of  in  the  scriptures.3  Polycarp  quotes,  almost 
verbatim,  the  apostles'  description  of  their  office.4  Hernias 
says, '  of  such  as  believed,  some  were  set  over  inferior  functions 
or  services,  being  intrusted  with  the  care  of  the  poor  and 
widows.'5  'The  deacons,'  says  Origen,  'preside  over  the 
money-tables  of  the  church.'6  And  again,  'those  deacons 
who  do  not  manage  well  the  money  of  the  church,  committed 
to  their  care,  but  act  a  fraudulent  part,  &c.  .  .  .  these  act  the 
part  of  money-changers,  .  .  .  for  the  deacons  were  appointed 
to  preside  over  the  tables  of  the  church,  as  we  are  taught  in 
the  Acts  of  the  Apostles.'  Cyprian  also  speaks  of  a  certain 
deacon  who  was  '  deposed  from  his  sacred  deaconship,  on 
account  of  his  fraudulent  and  sacrilegious  misapplication  of 
the  church's  money  to  his  own  private  use,  and  for  his  denial 
of  the  widows'  and  orphans'  pledges  deposited  with  him.'7 
In  his  seventy-third  epistle,  he  says,  'whence  we  understand 
that  it  is  lawful  for  none  but  the  presidents  of  the  church,  (that 
is,  the  pastors,)  to  baptize  and  grant  remission  of  sins.     Of 

1)  See   Cramp's  Text    Book   of  4)  Ep.  to  the  Phillipp.  §  5. 
Popery,  p.  292.    English  edition.  5)  Similitude  9,  §  27. 

2)  Jus  Canonicum  l,pp.  5,  6.    In  6)  Tract.  16.  in  Math. 
Palmer,  vol.  ii.  p.  407.                                      7)  Ep.  52.  See  also  Ep.  3. 

3)  See  all  given   in   Mr.  Wilson 
on  the  Deacons,  p.  9. 


248  DEACONS    WERE    NOT    APPOINTED  [BOOK    I. 

course  this  excludes  the  baptizing  deacons.'  Ambrose  testifies 
that  in  his  time  'deacons  were  not  allowed  to  preach.'1  Accord- 
ing to  the  apostolical  constitutions  deacons  could  not  preach 
but  only  read  the  gospels.2  Archbishop  Potter  shows,  that, 
according  to  the  nature  of  their  office,  and  the  opinion  of  many 
of  the  fathers,  deacons  could  neither  preach  nor  baptize,  as 
a  part  of  their  function.3  Chrysostom  says,  that  '  the  deacons 
had  need  of  great  wisdom,  although  the  preaching  of  the 
gospel  was  not  committed  to  them.  He  shows  that  they 
could  not  attend  to  this  and  to  the  care  of  the  poor  also, 
and  declares  '  that,  in  his  time,  such  deacons  as  the  apostles 
ordained  were  not  in  the  church.'4  Jerome  is  very  severe 
upon  them,  observing  that  he  had  seen  some  deacons  sit 
among  presbyters,  and  in  domestic  entertainments,  pronounce 
benedictions  on  the  presbyters.'  '  Let  them  learn,'  he  says. 
1  who  do  this,  that  they  act  incorrectly,  and  let  them  hear  the 
apostles,  '  it  is  unfit,  that,  leaving  the  word  of  God,  we  should 
serve  tables.'  They  should  know  for  what  purpose  deacons 
are  constituted.  They  may  read  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles,  and 
remember  their  first  condition.'5  So  also,  in  the  eighteenth 
canon  of  the  council  of  Nice,  we  read :  '  Let  the  deacons 
abide  in  their  own  station,  knowing  that  they  are  indeed  the 
ministers  of  the  bishop,  but  that  they  are  inferior  to  the  pres- 
byters.' So  also  in  the  thirth-seventh  canon  of  the  fourth 
council  of  Carthage,  '  Let  the  deacon  know  that  he  is  the 
minister  of  the  presbyter,  as  well  as  of  the  bishop.'  This 
council  also  ordered  that  the  deacon  should  be  ordained  by 
the  bishop  alone,  '  on  the  ground  that  he  icas  consecrated,  not 
as  a  priest,  but  as  a  minister.'6  '  They  were,  in  short,  the  ser- 
vants and  assistants  of  bishops  and  presbyters,  or  the  bishops 
adjutants,  to  render  all  required  services  at  his  and  their  bid- 
ding.'7 

We   might  refer  to  various  additional   testimonies,  quoted 

1)  Comment,  on  Ephes.  iv.  tired,  let  the  deacons  prepare  for  the 

2)  See  in  Potter  on  Ch.  Govt.  p.  celebration  of  the  eucharist.  Here 
209,  lib.  ii.  c.  57.  These  apostolical  the  deacons  are  represented,  not  as 
Constitutions  and  Canons  enjoin  .  an  order  of  priesthood  presiding,  but 
'  The  deacon  must  give  nothing  to  rather  as  taking  a  subordinate  charge 
any  poor  man  without  the  bishop's  of  the  external  order  and  decorum  of 
knowledge  and  consent ;  evidently  in-  the  church  —  such  as  would  comport 
timatins:   that  his  business  lay  with  with  a  secular  office.' 

the  distribution  of  charity.     If  any  be  3)    Ibid.  pp.  227-232,  208,209. 

found  sitting  out  of  his  own  place,  let  i)    Horn  1  1.  00  Acts,  6. 

the  deacon  reprove  him,  and  let  him  5)  Ep.  to  Evagrius. 

be  conducted  to  a  proper  place.     Let  6)  See   Riddle's  Christ.  Antiq.  p. 

the  deacons  take  care  that  none  whis-     239. 

per,  sleep,  laugh,  nod,  &c.     After  the  7)  Ibid. 

catechumens  and  penitents  have  re- 


CHAP.  XI.]  AS    AN    ORDER    OF    MINISTERS.  249 

by  Rutherford,  in  his  'Due  Right  of  Presbytery'  —  such  as 
Sozomen's,  that  the  office  of  deacon  was  to  keep  the  church's 
goods  ;  Eusebius,  that  the  care  of  the  poor,  and  the  keeping 
of  the  church  and  its  vessels,  were  committed  to  the  deacons ; 
Ruffinus,  that,  when  there  was  no  presbyter  present,  the 
deacons  might  distribute  the  elements  of  the  Lord's  supper  ; 
but  it  is  unnecessary.  We  merely  state  that  the  sixth  general 
council  of  Constantinople,  A.  D.  620,  acknowledged  'the 
scripture  deacons  to  be  no  other  than  overseers  of  the  poor, 
and  that  this  was  the  opinion  of  the  ancient  fathers.'  (Canon 
16.)  What  a  change,  then,  must  notoriously  have  taken 
place,  by  this  time,  on  the  original  constitution  of  the  christian 
church.  Neander,  the  illustrious  German  professor  of  church 
history,  in  his  '  History  of  the  Christian  Church,'  page  240. 
says :  '  though  many  other  secular  employments  were  added 
to  the  original  one,  yet  the  fundamental  principle,  (the  relief 
of  the  poor,)  as  well  as  the  name  of  the  office  remained.  In 
later  times,  (referring  to  Cyprian  and  Origen,)  we  still  find 
traces  of  the  distribution  of  alms  being  considered  the  peculiar 
employment  of  deacons.'  To  this  testimony  from  antiquity 
may  be  added  that  of  the  reformed  churches,  of  the  Wal- 
denses,  of  W^ickliffe,  of  Tyndal,  of  Lambert,  of  Budseus,  of 
the  Lutheran  church,  of  the  Genevan  church,  of  Calvin,  of 
the  Swiss  churches,  of  the  French  protestant  church,  of  the 
Belgic  and  the  Dutch  churches,  and  of  the  puritans  and  non- 
conformists.1 

According  to  Bingham,  the  ordinary  duties  of  deacons  in 
the  primitive  church  consisted  in  taking  care  of  the  utensils 
of  the  altar,  receiving  the  oblations  of  the  people,  delivering 
them  to  the  priest,  reading  aloud  the  names  of  benefactors, 
distributing  the  consecrated  elements,  and  carrying  them  to 
the  absent,  directing  the  behavior  of  the  people  in  church, 
attending  on  the  bishops,  and  acting  as  their  messengers  and 
representatives  in  synod,  sometimes  keeping  the  doors  during 
the  celebration  of  divine  service,  inquiring  after  the  poor,  and 
acting  as  almoners  to  them,  informing  the  bishop  of  misde- 
meanors, and  in  some  cases  acting  as  catechists.2  '  It  seems,' 
says  Mr.  Palmer,  '  that  for  many  centuries,  the  ordinary  office 
of  the  deacon  related  rather  to  such  duties  as  are  now  dis- 
charged by  parish  clerks  and  church-wardens,  than  to  the  higher 
parts  of  the  ministerial  office.'3     '  It  appears  to  me  probable,' 

1 )  See  quoted  in  Lorimer,  on  the     Vet.  et.  Nov.  Eccl.  Disc,  part  i.  lib.  ii.  c. 
office  of  the  deacon,  ch.  v.  29-33.     Also  Riddle's   Christ.  Antiq. 

2)  Eccl.Antiq.  B.ii.c.20.   Palmer    p.  240,  &c. 

on  the  Ch.  vol.  ii.  p.  405.    Thomassin  3)  Vol.  ii.  p.  405. 

32 


250  THE  ARGUMENTS  FOR  THE         [BOOK  I. 

adds  this  writer,  who  is  the  organ  and  highest  authority  of  ihe 
present  high-church  prelatists,  '  that,  in  the  West,  deacons  were 
often  not  ordained  in  the  lesser  churches.  In  England,  at  least, 
we  find  few  traces  of  the  order,  as  a  distinct  ollice,  in  parish 
churches.'     Of  this,  he  produces  some  remarkable  proofs.1 

§   5.     The  arguments  for  the  prelatical  tlieory  of  deacons 

answered. 

On  what  grounds,  then,  does  the  prelatic  church  venture 
upon  the  assertion  that  deacons  constitute  an  order  in  the 
ministry,  when  it  is  so  manifest,  from  scripture,  antiquity,  and 
present  custom,  that  such  is  not  the  truth  in  the  case?  Some 
of  them  sustain  this  position,  as  Chrysostom,  Theopbylact,  and 
Jeremy  Taylor  have  done,  by  boldly  denying  that  the  institu- 
tion mentioned  in  the  sixth  chapter  of  Acts,  was  the  order  of 
deacons  at  all,  and  affirming,  contrary  to  all  antiquity,  and  to 
what  may  be  termed  universal  or  catholic  consent,  that  these 
men  were  appointed  to  a  temporary  and  special  purpose  of 
managing  the  community  of  goods.'2  But  this,  it  will  be  allow- 
ed, is  a  desperate  remedy,  which  can  only  promise  the  death 
of  the  patient,  and  will  not,  we  presume,  be  prescribed  by  any 
modern  physician.  The  only  refuge  from  the  inevitable  con- 
clusion forced  upon  every  impartial  inquirer  is,  the  fact  that 
Stephen,  one  of  these  deacons,  is  found,  soon  after,  addressing 
his  ecclesiastical  judges,  in  an  able  and  cutting  speech ;  and 
that  Philip  is  represented  as  preaching,  or, at  leasr,explaining 
the  scriptures,  to  the  Ethiopian  eunuch.  But  will  any  reason- 
able man  say  that  these  facts  draw  after  them  the  conclusion 
that  deacons  were  instituted  to  preach,  as  well  as  otherwise 
to  assist  the  church.  Was  not  Stephen  full  of  the  Holy 
Ghost,  even  before  his  ordination  as  deacon  ?  Was  it  not  two 
years  after  his  appointment  as  deacon,  before  we  read  of  his 
public  defence?3  Might  he  not,  in  the  meantine,  have  been 
empowered  to  labor  in  the  word  and  doctrine?  But  even  as 
a  layman,  why  might  In-  not.  when  called  in  question  for  his 
faith  and  conduct,  and  accused  before  the  Sanhedrim  for 
blasphemy,  defend  himself  and  the  truth  as  it  is  in  Jesus?  It 
is  not  said  thai  Stephen  was  a  minister,  or  that  he  either 
preached  or  baptized,  and  surely  no  sane  man  can  conclude 
that  because  Stephen,  being  full  ^  the  Holy  Ghost,  made 
a  noble  defence  and  apology,  when   pul   upon   his  trial  and 

1)  Ibid.pp.  406,  407.  3)  See  Townsend's  New  Testa- 

2)  See  Dr.  Bowtlen's  Letters,  2d     ment  Arranged,  vol.  i.  pp.  45,  56. 
series.  Letter  vi.  pp.  GO,  64. 


CHAP.  XI.]  MINISTRY    OF    DEACONS    ANSWERED.  251 

called  upon  by  the  high  priest  to  answer  to  his  charge,  that, 
therefore,  all  deacons  were  instituted  as  an  order  in  the  sacred 
ministry,  for  the  purpose  of  preaching  ?  There  is  not  even 
the  shadow  of  proof  in  the  fact  stated,  for  this  most  illogical 
and  unwarranted  inference,  which  is  plainly  contrary  to  the 
explicit  statements  of  scripture.  Neither  is  there  any  greater 
strength  in  the  alleged  fact  that  Philip,  another  of  these  dea- 
cons, is  afterwards  spoken  of  as  an  evangelist,  and  as  preach- 
ing. (Acts,  8:  5,  and  21:  8.)  This  also  occurred  some  two 
years  after  his  appointment  to  the  deaconship.1  And  what  is 
the  reasonable  and  necessary  conclusion  which  every  one 
would  draw,  on  reading  these  passages?  Just  what  they 
would  draw,  did  they  hear  of  any  friend  who  had,  some 
year  or  two  before,  been  admitted  to  deacon's  orders,  that  he 
was  now  officiating  as  a  presbyter,  —  to  wit,  that  in  the  mean- 
time he  had  been  ordained  to  the  office  of  a  presbyter.  In 
like  manner  Philip,  having  used  the  office  of  a  deacon  well 
in  the  church  of  Jerusalem,  had  purchased  to  himself  a  good 
degree  and  great  boldness  in  the  faith.  And  the  propriety  of 
this  elevation  of  a  man  so  richly  endowed,  was  made  evi- 
dent upon  occasion  of  the  persecution  that  arose  at  Jerusalem, 
on  the  death  of  Stephen,  when  all  the  officers  of  the  church 
were  scattered  abroad,  and  when  Philip  was  naturally  com- 
missioned to  act,  wherever  he  went,  as  an  evangelist.  As  such, 
therefore,  he  could  most  warrantably  preach  and  baptize,  and 
as  such  is  he  spoken  of  in  connection  with  his  ministerial 
labors. 

But,  if  this  is  not  sufficient  to  obviate  the  groundless  hypoth- 
esis of  prelatists,  let  it  be  remembered  that,  in  the  beginning, 
as  we  have  already  proved,  the  commission  of  our  Lord  was  of 
itself  a  sufficient  authority  and  warrant  for  any  man,  properly 
endowed  and  called  to  the  work  by  the  inward  moving  of 
the  Holy  Spirit,  to  engage  in  the  preaching  of  the  word. 
'  Therefore,'  we  are  told,  '  they  that  were  scattered  abroad,' 
at  this  time,  'went,'  all  of  them,  'every  where  preaching 
the  word.  Then  Philip,  as  one  of  the  number,  either  com- 
missioned by  the  apostles,  or  thus  inwardly  called,  'went 
down  to  the  city  of  Samaria  and  preached  Christ  unto  them.' 
So  that,  at  that  time,  as  many  of  the  fathers  attest,2  even 
laymen  engaged  in  that  work,  which,  when  the  church  was 
organized,  was  confined  to  the  regularly  ordained  ministry. 
But,  as  Stephen  is  distinctly  called  an  evangelist,  he  must, 

1)  Ibid,  vol.  i.  p.  75.  2)  See  B.  i.  ch.  3,  §  3,  and  Spir- 

itual Despotism,  App.  to  §  4,  pp.  433, 
434.  Eng.  ed. 


252  THE    PRIMITIVE    AND    MODERN    DEACON  [BOOK.    I. 

some  time  or  other,  have  been  commissioned  as  such  by  the 
apostles.  And  thus  is  there,  in  scripture  itself,  more  than 
enough  to  overthrow  the  supposition,  that,  in  direct  contrariety 
to  the  statement  of  scripture,  the  ministry  of  the  word  consti- 
tuted a  part  of  the  deacon's  office. 

§  6.  The  primitive,  and  modem  prelalical  deacon,  entirely 
different,  and  prelacy,  therefore,  an  innovation  upon  the  apos- 
tolic polity  of  the  church. 

Deacons,  therefore,  are  not  ministers  of  the  word  and  sacra- 
ments. They  have  no  spiritual  jurisdiction  or  cure  of  souls. 
They  are  simply  curators  of  the  poor,  and  attendants  upon 
tables  and  the  temporalities  of  the  church.  They  are  not  an 
order  in  the  ministry,  but  ecclesiastical  officers  appointed  for 
the  express  purpose  of  freeing  the  ministry  from  any  unneces- 
sary occupation  and  hindrance  in  the  prosecution  of  their  work. 
The  present  order  of  deacons,  in  prelatic  churches,  is  not,  in 
any  essential  particular,  the  same  as  that  instituted  by  the 
apostles.  The  primitive  deacons  were  officers  in  a  particular 
church,  and  were  always  appointed  to  discharge  their  func- 
tions for  the  benefit  of  that  congregation,  and  its  bishops  or 
presbyters  exclusively  ;  whereas,  the  modern  deacon  is  con- 
nected with  no  one  church  in  particular,  but  with  an  extensive 
diocese,  and  may  even  be  transferred  to  some  other  and  distant 
portion  of  the  church.  The  primitive  deacon  was  not  regard- 
ed as  in  any  measure  partaking  of  the  priesthood  or  ministry, 
but  merely  of  the  deaconship,  whereas,  the  modern  deacon 
is  held  forth  as  an  order  of  the  priesthood  or  ministry,  and  a 
necessary  part  of  this  sacred  hierarchy.  The  primitive  deacon 
was  appointed  for  the  very  purpose  of  enabling  ministers  to 
give  themselves  wholly  to  the  preaching  of  the  word  and  to 
the  church;  whereas,  the  modern  deacon  is  by  custom  univer- 
sally authorized  to  preach,  and  to  baptize,  and  otherwise  to  dis- 
charge ministerial  functions.  The  office  of  primitive  deacon 
was  in  itsell  complete,  and  in  most  cases  permanent  and  final, 
and  in  its  duties  distinct,  particular,  and  well-defined:  whereas, 
modem  deacons  are  a  sort  <i\'  nondescript  ministers,  who 
have  no  particular  charge,  no  invariable  and  defined  duties, 
no  settled  and  permanent  calling,  and  who  are.  in  fact,  mere 
expectants  of  some  call,  by  means  ofwhich  they  may  secure 
ordination  as  presbyters,  and  induction  into  some  charge. 
Neither  can  any  deacon  ever  become  a  presbyter  without 
some  such  call.1      In  short,  the  primitive  deacon  had  a  local 

1 )  See  the  Canons  of  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church. 


CHAP.    XI.]  ENTIRELY    DIFFERENT.  253 

habitation  and  a  name,  and  was  found  desirable  and  neces- 
sary in  every  church ;  whereas,  as  we  have  seen,  the  prelatic 
deacon  has  been  displaced  from  many  churches,  through 
many  ages,  and  is,  at  this  time,  except  as  a  probationer  under 
training  for  office,  a  useless  order,  for  which,  as  Van  Epen 
says,  the  church  can  find  no  practicable  occupation.1 

The  declaration,  therefore,  in  the  Common  Prayer  Book, 
as  understood  by  high  churchmen,  is  contrary  to  the  truth  in 
the  case.  The  first  canon  of  the  protestant  episcopal  church 
in  this  country  is  an  encroachment,  in  the  very  face  of  scrip- 
ture and  antiquity,  based  on  the  mere  authority  of  its  framers. 
The  episcopal  theory  of  three  orders,  therefore,  resting,  as 
it  does,  upon  the  pillars  of  its  three  orders  of  ministers,  is 
built  upon  the  sand,  and  cannot  be  sustained  by  the  impar- 
tial verdict  of  any  enlightened  man  who  will  diligently  study 
the  scriptures  and  ancient  authors ;  while  presbyterianism 
must  be  admitted,  in  this  view  also,  to  be  most  carefully  con- 
formed to  the  apostolic  and  primitive  churches.2 

1)  See  quoted  as  above.  292.  Jameson's  Sum  of  the  Episcopal 

2)  On  this  whole  subject  see  An-  Controversy,  p.  91,  &c.  Dr.  Rice,  in 
derson's  Def.  of  Presb.  pp.  209-211.  Evang.  Mag.  vol.  x.  p.  564,  &c.  Bib. 
Henderson's  Rev.  and  Consid.  Edinb.  Repertory,  1835,  p.  242,  &c.  Vidal*s 
1706,  pp.  5,  6,  8.  Rutherford's  Due  Mosheim's  Commentaries,  vol.  i.  See 
Right  of  Presb.  pp.  159,  174,  where  he  also  a  recent  work,  received  since  the 
fully  meets  every  conceivable  objec-  above  was  written,  On  the  Office  of 
tion.  Jus  Div.  Eccl.  Regim.  p.  175,  the  Deacon,  by  the  Rev.  John  G.  Lor- 
&c.  Brine's  Wks.  vol.  iv.  Rutherford's  imer.    Edinb.  1842. 

Plea  for  Paul's    Presbytery,  pp.  291, 


CHAPTER    XII. 


THE  ALLEGED  PRELATICAL  CHARACTER  OF  EPAPHRODITUS, 

OF  TIMOTHY   AND   TITUS;    OF  JAMES,    AND    OF  THE 

SEVEN  ANGELS,  EXAMINED  AND  DISPROVED. 


We  have  now  completed  our  examination  of  the  scriptural 
claims  of  presbyters,  and  shown  that,  according  to  the  instruc- 
tions and  practice  of  Christ  and  his  apostles,  they  are  divinely 
authorized  to  discharge  every  function  which  has  been 
regarded  as  peculiar  to  prelates,  and  that  they  are,  therefore, 
the  highest  order  in  the  christian  ministry.  But  before  we 
can  consider  our  way  as  perfectly  cleared,  there  are  several 
objections  offered  to  this  conclusion,  on  whose  strength  the 
advocates  of  the  prelacy  triumphantly  build  their  cause.  They 
affirm  that  there  is  manifest  and  clear  warrant  for  the  order  of 
prelales,  in  eleven  cases  of  prelatic  episcopacy  found  in  the 
New  Testament.  These  are  the  cases  of  Timothy  and  Titus, 
of  James,  bishop  of  Jerusalem,  of  Epaphroditus,  and  of  the 
seven  angels  of  the  seven  Asiatic  churches.  These,  therefore, 
we  shall  now  proceed  to  examine,  after  which  we  shall  attend 
to  some  other  objections. 

§  1.  The  claims  of  Sylvanns,  A)idro7iicus,  and  Junia,  to  be 
prelates,  considered,  and  a  general  reply  given  to  all  such 
claims. 

In  the  above  enumeration,  we  have  not  thought  it  necessary 
to  particularize  the  claims  of  Sylvanus,  Andronicus,  and 
Junia,  which  lust  personage  was  no  less  than  the  wife  of  An- 
dronicus, it  we  arc  to  believe  Chrysostom,  Theophylact,  and 
several  other  lathers,  and  also  the  Greek  and  Latin  churches 
generally,  which  observe  their  festival  as  husband  and  wife 
on  the  17th  of  .May.'      And  yet,  in  the  zeal  of  prelatists  for 

1)   Calmet's  Dictionary,  vol.  i.  p.  793.    Junia. 


CHAP.  XII.]  NO    PRELATES    IN    THE    BIBLE.  255 

the  enlargement  of  the  apostolic  college  into  something  in  the 
shape  and  dimensions  of  an  order,  even  Junia,  or,  as  some 
copies  have  it,  Julia,  is  to  be  duly  consecrated  to  the  prelacy, 
and  thus  give  legal  succession  to  other  female  occupants  of 
the  apostolic  chair.1 

There  is,  however,  one  general  reply  to  all  these  cases  of 
alleged  apostolicity,  which  will  show  that  the  efforts  expended 
in  sustaining  their  claims  are  but  an  idle  waste  of  ingenuity 
and  labor,  and  that  is,  they  would  all,  even  if  established,  be 
beside  the  case,  and  prove  nothing.  For,  could  evidence  be 
produced  that  Christ  had  sent  forth  from  time  to  time,  five 
hundred  apostles,  what  would  this  have  to  do  with  the  estab- 
lishment of  the  exclusive  powers  of  prelates,  as  a  permanent 
and  standing  order  in  the  ministry.  We  must  believe  that  it 
would  have  just  nothing  at  all  to  do  with  it,  since,  as  apostles, 
as  we  have  abundantly  proved,  they  could  have  no  successors,2 
while,  in  their  ordinary  character  of  ministers,  they  are 
succeeded  by  presbyters,  who  are  clothed  with  every  minis- 
terial function.  Presbyters  are,  beyond  controversy,  a  divinely 
instituted  order  of  christian  ministers.  Presbyters  are  scrip- 
tural bishops,  and  have  every  episcopal  function  committed 
to  them  which  can,  in  any  reason,  be  pretended  to.  It  is, 
therefore,  impossible  that  scripture  should  announce  to  us 
another  order  of  ministers  different  from  bishops,  to  rule  over 
bishops,  and  yet  possessed  of  no  other  functions  than  those 
attributed  to  these  same  bishops.  If,  therefore,  the  persons 
above  named,  and  the  others  referred  to,  were  all  elevated  to 
the  seat  of  the  apostleship,  they  were  thereby  constituted 
extraordinary  officers  ;  they  were  adapted  to  the  immature 
and  unorganized  condition  of  the  church;  they  were  endowed 
with  supernatural  gifts  ;  they  can  have  no  successors  ;  and 
they  afford  no  precedent  for  the  intended  order  of  the  church 
during  its  fixed,  organized,  and  permanent  condition.  That 
order  can  only  be  deduced  from  the  platform  instituted  by 
these  extraordinary  officers,  and  this  we  have  proved  to  be 
the  order  of  presbyterianism,  in  contrast  to  that  of  the  prelatic 
hierarchy.  But  our  supposition  is  entirely  gratuitous,  since 
there  is  nothing  like  evidence  that  any  of  these  persons  were 
constituted  apostles,  although  Timothy  and  Titus,  as  evange- 
lists, were  endowed  with  extraordinary  gifts,  and  employed 
in  extraordinary  duties. 

It  is  allowed,  even  by  episcopalians,  that  the  organization 

1)  Her  claims  are   advanced  by  2)   Chap.    I,  and  Lect.  on  Apost. 

bishop  Onderdonk  ;  See  Bib.  Repert.     Succ.  Lect.  ix. 
1635.  p.  255. 


256  NO    PRELATES    IN    THE    BIBLE.  [BOOK  I. 

of  churches  on  the  prelatical  theory,  was  adopted  by  the 
apostles  only  as  it  regards  some  of  the  churches,  while  others 
(as  in  the  case  of  Philippi)  were  evidently  left  without  the 
order  of  prelates.  Now  from  this  undenicd  and  undeniable  fact, 
we  may  deduce  a  strong  argument  against  that  interpretation 
which  would  erect  Timothy  and  Titus  into  prelates,  and  found 
upon  them  the  superstructure  of  a  hierarchy,  as  the  permanent 
order  of  church  polity.  Even  on  the  supposition  that  presby- 
terian  parity  is  the  established  order  of  the  christian  ministry, 
we  can  easily  comprehend  both  the  necessity  and  wisdom  of 
the  temporary  delegation  to  these  supernaturally  endowed 
evangelists,  of  the  work  of  a  general  superintendence  and 
arrangement.  But  if  we  will  suppose  the  apostles  to  have 
taken  the  same  view  with  episcopalians,  of  the  necessity  and 
supreme  importance  of  the  hierarchy,  to  the  preservation  of 
unity,  order,  and  truth,  and  the  conveyance  of  divine  grace  in 
the  sacraments,  confirmation,  and  ordination,  then  it  is  not 
possible  to  account  for  the  fact,  that  they  failed  to  secure  this 
source  of  such  all-essential  blessings,  to  all  the  churches 
erected  by  them.  Either  such  an  order  was  not  conceived 
of  by  them,  or  else  it  was  not  regarded  as  of  essential  impor- 
tance, or  at  all  necessary'for  these  ends.  For,  were  it  possible 
to  secure  such  benefits  through  such  an  agency,  there  was 
every  possible  motive  for  its  immediate  appointment.  The 
gospel,  be  it  remembered,  had  very  early  spread  itself  through 
many  distant  provinces  of  the  Roman  empire,  by  means  of 
the  Jewish  converts  who  were  scattered  abroad  after  the  days 
of  Pentecost,  and  the  persecution  which  arose  on  the  death 
of  Stephen.  These  converts  could  have  been  but  very 
imperfectly  acquainted  with  the  doctrines  of  the  gospel,  and 
would  doubtless  connect  with  it  all  their  Jewish  views  and 
prejudices,  to  its  great  and  serious  detriment.  The  evils 
arising  from  this  source,  and  of  which  we  hear  so  much  in 
the  New  Testament,  must  have  rapidly  increased  in  the  twelve 
years  during  which  the  apostles  confined  their  labors  to  the 
land  of  Judea.  Paul  did  not  enter  upon  his  travels  for  two 
years  subsequent  to  this  time.  Indeed,  there  can  be  but  little 
doubt  that, during  ihis  period,  the  errors  which  so  afflicted  the 
early  church  took  their  rise.  Now,  if,  as  is  supposed,  the  apos- 
tles thus  remained  together  to  mature  their  plans,  to  unite  and 
concentrate  the  authority  of  their  decisions,  and  to  afford 
access  to  the  churches,  when  they  did  enter  upon  the  work  of 
travelling,  we  should  most  assuredly  expeel  that,  were  prelates 
the  divinely  appointed  sources  of  grace  and  order,  and  of  unity 
and  purity  of  faith,  they  would  have  been  at  once  secured;  not 


CHAP.  XII.]  EPAPHRODITUS    NOT    A    PRELATE.  257 

for  one  or  two  places,  but  for  all.  And  when  we  find  that 
such  was  not  the  fact,  and  that  up  to  the  very  latest  period, 
and  when  writing  to  churches  for  the  last  time,  these  apostles 
hinted  at  no  such  order,  we  are  constrained  to  repudiate  the 
conclusion,  drawn  from  isolated  and  extraordinary  arrange- 
ments, in  favor  of  a  prelatic  hierarchy.1 

§  2.     The  alleged  prelatical  character  of  Epaphroditus 
examined. 

We  proceed,  therefore,  to  the  first  plausible  case  of  scrip- 
tural prelacy,  which  is  that  of  Epaphroditus.2  Epaphroditus 
was  probably  one  of  the  seventy,  and  therefore  a  presbyter, 
and  his  only  pretension  to  the  character  of  prelate  is  founded 
on  the  application  to  him  of  the  term  apostle,  in  its  original 
and  unofficial  sense  of  messenger,  when,  as  the  messenger  of 
the  church  at  Philippi,  he  carried  money  to  the  apostle  Paul, 
who  was  then  in  bonds.3  "We  have  already  made  it  abun- 
dantly manifest,  that  the  term  apostle  had  a  common  and  a 
peculiar  signification,  and  that,  in  the  former,  it  was  applied, 
even  by  the  fathers,  to  all  officers  of  the  church,  and  is 
descriptive  of  any  servant  or  messenger.4  In  this  sense  the 
term  is  used  in  2  Cor.  8  :  23,  where  we  read  of  '  the  messen- 
gers of  the  churches,'  who  are  carefully  distinguished  from 
Titus,  who  is  called  'the  partner  and  fellow-helper'  of  the 
apostle ;  and  whose  only  errand  was,  not  the  preaching  of 
the  gospel,  but  the  conveyance  of  funds.5  This  evidently 
was  the  meaning  attached  to  the  term  here  by  the  translators 
of  our  Bible,  who  were  prelatists,  and  who  took  every  occasion 
to  make  the  original  speak  the  language  of  prelacy.  In  the 
same  sense  is  the  term  taken  by  our  Lord,  when  he  says, '  the 
servant  is  not  greater  than  his  Lord,  nor  he  that  is  sent 
(anocnolog)  greater  than  he  that  sent  him,'  where  he  argues 
from  the  general  notion  of  a  servant  and  a  lord,  or  a  messenger 
and  him  that  sent  him.  Here,  also,  we  have  the  testimony  of  our 
translators  in  favor  of  our  views.  Besides,  there  is  no  evidence 
whatever,  and  none  certainly  produced,  to  show  that  Epaph- 
roditus had  those  qualifications,  gifts,  and  calling,  which  were 

1)  See  Burton's  Inquiry  into  the  inconsistency,  by  Mr.  Goode  ;   Div. 
Heresies  of  the  Apost.  Age,  pp.  13-25 ;  Rule  of  Faith,  vol.  ii.  p.  C4. 
Lardner's  Jewish  Testim.  ch.  i ;  Mo-  3)  Phil.  2:  25,  and  4:  IS. 
sheim's    Comment.;    Vaughan's  Cor-            4)  See  Lectures  on  Apost.  Succ. 
ruptions  of  Christianity,  pp.  127,  130.  Lect.  ix. 

2)  See  lately  adduced,  with  great  5)  See  objections  well  answered 


in  Boyse's  Anct.  Episc.  p.  30S. 


S3 


258  TIMOTHY  AXD  TITUS  [BOOK  I. 

essential  to  an  apostle,1  and  it  is  with  a  peculiarly  bad  grace 
that  prelatists,  who  have  such  a  dread  of  any  argument  on 
this  subject  founded  upon  mere  names,  should  build  such  a 
castle  as  the  apostlcship  of  a  humble  presbyter,  upon  the  airy 
foundation  of  an  ambiguous  word.  Neither  would  the  theory, 
that  Epaphroditus  was  an  apostle,  in  any  manner  help  out 
the  failing  cause  of  prelacy,  since,  were  he  an  apostle,  he 
never  could  be  the  fixed  bishop  or  pastor  of  any  single  church, 
and  therefore  not  of  Philippi.  Neither,  as  an  apostle,  could 
he  have  any  successor  in  his  office.  And,  even  were  he 
allowed  to  be  bishop  of  Philippi,  we  know  that  the  Philip- 
pians  had  other  '  bishops  and  deacons,'  so  that  Epaphroditus 
could  have  been  at  best  no  more  than  the  president  or  mode- 
rator among  these  presbyter-bishops.2  But  we  have  said 
enough  in  refutation  of  a  hypothesis  which  is  disproved  by 
one  of  the  most  esteemed  among  the  advocates  of  the 
hierarchy.3 

§  3.     The  alleged prelatical  character  of  Timothy  and  Titus 

examined. 

It  is,  however,  affirmed,  with  the  most  unblushing  assu- 
rance, that  Timothy  and  Titus  were  constituted  ministers  of 
an  order  distinct  from,  and  superior  to,  bishops  or  presbyters; 
and  that  they  were,  therefore,  diocesan  prelates.  So  say  the 
Romanists,  as  Bellarmine  and  Turrianus,  who  have  violently 
thrown  this  objection  in  the  face  of  protestants.  And  so  also 
teach  all  prelatists,  who,  having  caught  from  these  enemies  of 
the  faith  and  order  of  the  gospel,  their  poisoned  weapons, 
have  wielded  them  for  the  destruction  of  all  the  other  reformed 
churches.  But  no  such  weapons  can  penetrate  or  injure  us, 
since  they  must  first  transpierce  the  invincible  word  of  God, 
which,  as  a  weapon,  is  sharper  than  any  two-edged  sword, 
and,  as  a  shield,  able  to  repel  every  fiery  dart,  of  weak  and 
human  device,  and  all  vain  and  conjectural  inferences  from 
uncertain  premises. 

We,  therefore,  utterly  deny  that  there  is  any  sufficient  evi- 
dence in  God's  word  for  this  prelatic  consecration  of  Timo- 
thy and  Titus.  In  the  first  place,  there  is  nothing  there 
recorded  of  them,  in  their  agency  or  their  duties,  to  which 
presbyters,  empowered  as  we  have  found  them  to  be,  were 
not  competent,  when  duly  authorized   as    they  were  by  the 

1)  See  Lectures  on  Apost.  Succ  •  3)  Mr.   Dodwell,   Dis.    Cypr.   p. 
Lect.  ix.                                                    •     123,  and   Parcen,  p.  13S.  in   Pierce's 

2)  SeeBoyse's  Anct.Episc.p.  307      Vind.  part  ii .  p.  103. 


CHAP.  XII.]  WERE    NOT    PRELATES.  259 

apostles.  Secondly,  neither  Timothy  nor  Titus  are  any 
where,  in  all  scripture,  declared  to  have  been,  in  fact  or  design, 
bishops  of  Ephesus  and  Crete.  Thirdly,  it  is  on  the  contrary 
certain,  that  even  in  the  second  epistle  addressed  to  Timothy,  he 
is  expressly  denominated  an  evangelist,  and  that  he  was,  there- 
fore, as  we  have  seen,  a  presbyter,  2  Tim.  4 :  5.  Fourthly,  it 
is  also  ascertained  to  be  fact,  that  these  individuals  were 
continually  travelling  from  place  to  place,  and  that  they  could 
not,  therefore,  be  the  located  prelates  of  any  one  district.', 
Fifthly,  as  Mark  was  with  Timothy,  and  Zenas  and  Apollos 
with  Titus,  there  can  be  no  reason  to  suppose,  that,  contrary 
to  apostolic  example  and  practice,  they  ever  ordained  alone. 
Sixthly,  Timothy  could  impart  no'  higher  ordination  than  he 
had  received,  which  was  that  of  presbyters.  He  must  have 
acted,  therefore,  as  a  presbyter,  whether  he  ordained  singly 
or  conjointly  with  others.  Seventhly,  throughout  all  the  epis- 
tles to  Timothy  and  Titus,  there  is  no  mention  whatever  of 
any  other  ministerial  officers,  than  presbyters  or  bishops,  and 
the  officers  called  deacons ;  and,  therefore,  if  Timothy  and 
Titus  were  set  apart  to  a  higher  order,  it  was  temporary,  and 
not  necessary  to  the  regular  constitution  of  any  church. 
Eighthly,  they  who  assert,  that  Timothy  and  Titus  were  set 
apart  in  their  extraordinary  character,  as  the  predecessors  of 
a  similar  and  standing  order  of  prelates,  must  prove,  not 
only  that,  as  authorized  by  the  apostles,  they  might  have  been 
such,  but  that  they  actually  were  so  ordained  and  so  regarded 
by  the  apostles,  by  themselves,  and  by  the  churches ;  which 
we  are  sure  they  never  can.  Ninthly,  we  object  to  the  argu- 
ments by  which  the  prelatic  character  of  Timothy  and  Titus 
are  sustained,  that  they  lead  to  gross  absurdities,  and  can- 
not therefore  be  sound.  For  if  they  were  prelates,  that  is, 
resident  bishops,  because  they  ordained  elders,  then  Paul  and 
Barnabas  were  also  resident  bishops,  Acts,  14 :  20,  23.  If, 
again,  they  were  resident  bishops,  because  they  instructed 
presbyters,  then  was  Paul  also  resident  bishop  of  Ephesus. 
Acts,  20  :  17.  If,  again,  they  were  diocesan  bishops  because 
they  were  empowered  to  receive  accusations  against  presby- 
ters, though  they  had  only  power  to  receive  them,  but  not  to 
decide  upon  them  alone  ;2  then  were  the  Corinthian  presby- 
ters also  diocesan  bishops,  for  they,  and  others  also,  as  we 
have  seen,  were  similarly  empowered  to  proceed  with  spir- 
itual censures,  even  to  excommunication  ;  (see  X  Cor.  5 :  &c.3) 

1)  See  their  journeyings  sketched  2)  See  Whitaker's  Contr.  5.  q.  1. 

out  in   Corbet's  Remains  on  the  Ch.     c.  2.  f.  16,  in  Owen's  Plea.  p.  21. 
pp.  123,  124.  3)  See  Dr.  Mason's  Wks.  vol.  iii. 

p.  190. 


260  TIMOTHY    AND    TITUS  [BOOK  I. 

And  thus  Paul,  and  every  other  apostle,  may  be  demon- 
strated to  have  been  each  of  thorn  resident  and  diocesan 
bishops,  while,  like  Timothy  and  Titus,  they  were  in  perpet- 
ual motion.  Ninthly,  the  special  and  temporary  nature  of 
their  work,  is  carefully  mentioned  ;  Timothy  being  required 
to  oppose  erroneous  doctrines,  and  Titus  to  set  in  order  the 
things  that  were  wanting,  that  is,  to  complete  the  organization 
of  the  churches.  1  Tim.  1:3;  3 :  14, 15;  4 :  13  ;  and  Titus, 
3 :  12.1  Tenthly,  the  engagement  of  Timothy  in  this  work, 
was  not  by  consecration  to  it,  nor  as  having  his  chosen  held 
of  labor  at  Ephesus,  but  it  was  by  special  request ;  '  I  besought 
thee,'  says  Paul,  to  abide  still,'  or  longer,  '  at  Ephesus,'  while 
Titus  was  left  behind,  that,  or  'until  he  could  set  in  order  the 
things  that  were  wanting.'  They  were  bolh,  therefore,  pres- 
byters, empowered  by  special  divine  authority,  to  act  accord- 
ing to  the  exigencies  of  the  infant  church. 

Eleventhly,  whatever  prelatic  consecration  and  authority 
Timothy  received,  must  have  been  previous  to  the  writing  of 
the  first  epistle  addressed  to  him,  since  it  is  in  this  epistle  his 
prelatical  consecration  and  character  is  supposed  to  be  alluded 
to.  Now  it  is  universally  agreed,2  that  this  epistle  was  writ- 
ten before  Paul's  visit  to  Ephesus,  of  which  it  is  alleged 
Timothy  was  prelate.  But  on  this  occasion,  Paul  formally 
enjoined  upon  its  presbyters  to  continue  to  act  as  bishops, 
and  to  govern  that  church  of  which  the  Holy  Ghost  had 
constituted  them  the  bishops,  and  all  this  without  any  allusion 
to  the  fact  that,  on  prelatic  principles,  they  were  neither  valid 
ministers,  nor  a  valid  church  without  prelates,  but  usurpers 
of  the  divine  rights  and  prerogatives  of  that  sacred  order.  If, 
on  the  other  hand,  Timothy  was  subsequently  consecrated  a 
prelate,  then,  of  course,  he  might  have  been  all  that  he  is 
described  in  the  first  epistle,  and  yet  not  a  prelate;  while  in 
the  second  epistle,  there  is  nothing  whatever  on  which  any 
such  pretension  could  be  based. 

Twelfthly,  it  is  made  certain  that  Timothy  was  a  presby- 
ter, who,  being  extraordinarily  empowered,  acted  as  an  evan- 
gelist or  vic.-apostle  in  missionary  labors,  not  only  before 
the  time  of  his  alleged  prelatic  appointment,  but  also  after- 
wards; lor  Timothy  was,  it  seems,  absent  from  Ephesus, 
when  the  second  epistle  was  written,  (Eph,  6:  21,22.)  and 

1)  'That  thou  mightesl  further  rint,  Theodoret,  Baronins,  Sndor,  Ca- 
put in  order  the  things  which  remain*  pellus,  Grotius,  Hammond,  Liirhtfoot, 
ed  unarranged'  Bloomlield,  in  loco.  Bp.  Hall,  kc.  See  Owen's  Plea,  pp. 
See  Dr.  Mason,  vol  iii.  p.  204.  25,  20. 

2)  This  is  the  opinion  of  Athana- 


CHAF.  XII«]  WERE    NOT    PRELATES.  261 

therefore  never  could  have  been  the  resident  prelate  of  Ephe- 
sus.1  Thirteenthly,  as  evangelists,  these  presbyter-bishops, 
Timothy  and  Titus,  occupied  a  more  elevated,  dignified,  and 
important  station  than  they  would  have  done  as  located 
bishops ;  and  their  confinement,  therefore,  to  the  assigned 
places,  would  have  been,  in  fact,  a  degradation,  and  not  an 
elevation.  It  will  be  observed,  that  they  were  besought  to 
remain,  and  left  for  a  time  only,  and  that,  while  there,  they 
acted  in  their  proper  character  of  evangelists.2  Fourteenthly, 
to  know  what  standing  and  permanent  ministers  are  essential 
and  perpetual  in  the  church,  we  are  bound  to  look,  not  to 
the  temporary  and  extraordinary  powers  granted  to  the  first 
pioneer  laborers  in  the  uncleared  wastes  of  heathenism,  but 
to  those  orders  instituted  in  the  churches  they  organized ; 
and  in  those  directions  these  ministers  received  by  divine 
inspiration  for  the  prosecution  of  their  work,  and  the  perpetua- 
tion of  the  church.  Now  in  the  epistles  both  to  Timothy  and 
Titus,  only  presbyter-bishops  and  deacons  are  any  where 
mentioned,  and  these,  therefore,  are  all  the  officers  that  are 
permanent  in  the  church. 

Fifteenthly,  that  these  presbyters  were  in  their  extraordi- 
nary character  evangelists,  duly  authorized  by  the  apostles, 
we  know.3  That  they  were  ever  afterwards  ordained  as 
prelates,  we  do  not  know,  and  let  those  who  affirm  it,  give 
their  proof.  Sixteenthly,  if  Timothy  was  duly  consecrated  a 
prelate  at  Ephesus,  and  thus  set  apart  as  the  successor  of  the 
apostle,  and  of  course  with  independent  delegated  powers, 
how  is  it  that  the  apostle  still  announces  his  intention  of 
coming  shortly  to  Ephesus  himself;  adding,  that  he  gave 
these  directions  to  Timothy,  only  that,  in  case  he  should  tarry 
long,  Timothy  might  know  how  to  behave  himself  in  the 
house  of  God.  (See  1  Tim.  3 :  14,  15,  and  4 :  13 ;  1  Tim.  5  : 
13;  1  Pet.  4:  15.)  If  Timothy  and  Titus  were  prelates, 
then  the  prelatic  office  must  be  subordinate  to  the  apostolic, 
since  these  individuals  continued  in  subjection  to  the  apostles, 
and  were  in  all  things  directed  by  them.4  The  office  of  the 
apostle,  was  either,  therefore,  superior  to  theirs,  or  it  was 
extraordinary ;  and,  in  either  case,  the  theory  of  the  prelacy 
is  overthrown. 

Seventeenthly,  as  to  the  authority  of  the  fathers   for  the 

1)  See  the  Divine  Right  of  the  Bp.  Dounham,  and  all  the  episcopal 
Min.part  ii.  as  above,  and  Dr.  Mason's  men  we  have  read,  say  the  authors  of 
Wks.  vol.  iii.  pp.  202,  203.  the  Div.  Right  of  the  Min.  p.  71. 

2)  Divine  Right,  &c  pp.  70,  71.  4)  2  Tim.  4 :  9,13,  21;  Titus,  3: 

3)  This  is  admitted  by  Bp.  Hall,  12. 


262  TIMOTHY    AND    TITUS  [BOOK  I. 

prelacy  of  Timothy  and  Titus,  we  have  only  to  reply,  that 
it  is  all  built  upon  Eusebius,  who  ventures  no  further  than  to 
say  (urioQeiTcti)  Ht  is  so  reported?  while  this  report  was  based 
upon  the  fable-telling  Clement,  and  Hegesippus,  whose  works 
do  not  survive  to  tell  their  own  story.1  However  this  may 
have  been,  Eusebius  testifies,  that  the  theory  of  the  prelacy 
of  Timothy  and  Titus  had  only  acquired  the  strength  of  a 
report  as  late  as  the  fourth  century.  And  besides  all  this, 
the  term  bishop,  when  applied  to  them,  may  rather  mean 
what  the  scriptures  mean,  which  is  a  presbyter,  than  what 
the  later  fathers  meant,  which  is  a  new  species  of  ministerial 
office,  generated  in  the  lap  of  a  corrupt  church.  'Certain  it 
is,'  says  Dr.  Campbell,2  '  that  in  the  first  three  centuries,  neith- 
er Timothy  nor  Titus  is  styled  bishop  by  any  writer.'  That 
Jerome  did  not  believe  Titus  to  be  the  fixed  bishop  of  Crete, 
is  evident  from  what  he  says ;  '  Titus,  after  he  had  given 
some  instruction  to  the  churches  of  Crete,  was  to  return 
again  to  the  apostles,  and  to  be  succeeded  by  Artemas,  or 
Tychichus,  for  comforting  these  churches  in  the  absence  of 
the  apostle.'3  Of  the  same  opinion  also  was  Chrysostom, 
when  he  said,  '  it  is  questionable,  if  the  apostle  had  then 
constituted  Timothy  bishop  there,  for  he  saith,  'that  thou 
mightest  charge  some  that  they  teach  no  other  doctrine.'4 
This  whole  argument  for  the  prelacy  of  Timothy  and 
Titus,  and  the  seven  angels,  is  of  modern  date,  and  was 
never  anciently  pleaded  as  authorizing  the  divine_  and  specifi- 
cally distinct  office  of  bishops  above  that  of  pastor.5 

Eighteenthly,  let  us  suppose  that  Timothy  was  made  by 
Paul  bishop  of  Ephesus,  it  is  still  to  be  determined  whether, 
as  such,  he  could  have  any  resemblance  to  our  prelates,  who 
are  bishops  of  an  indefinite  number  of  churches.  Timothy 
was  only,  as  is  affirmed,  bishop  of  Ephesus.  But  in  the 
time  of  Ignatius,  there  was  at  Ephesus  only  one  church,6  of 
which  one  church  Ignatius  was  pastor.7  Bishop  Timothy, 
therefore,  instead  of  being  prelate,  was  no  more  after  all,  even 
when  duly  consecrated  and  mitred,  than  the  pastor  of  a  single 
city  congregation.  But  again,  presbyters,  as  appears  from  the 
epistles  addressed  to  these  officers,  are  bishops,  and  it  was  over 

1)  On  this  testimony  of  Eusebius,     Fund,  of  Hier.  p.  150.     See  also  Smec- 
see  Dr.  Rice  in  the  Evang.  Mag.  vol.     tymnuus,  p.  51. 

x.  p.  586.  5)  Pamhl.  on  Presb.  No.  2,  p.  56. 

2)  Lect.  on  Eccl.   Hist.  Lect.  v.  6)  Ignatius  Ep.  ad.  Ephes. pp.  20, 
p.  87.  25.   Voss.ed.and  Ep.ced.  Maym.  p.  34. 

3)  Proasm.  in  Titus.  7)  So  it  is  admitted  by  Bp.  Burn, 

4)  Horn.  1,  in  Tim.  in  Jameson  in  Vindic.  of  the    Ch    of  Scotland,  p. 

51,  Apud.  Owen,  p.  30. 


CHAP.  XII.]  WERE    NOT    PRELATES.  263 

these,  Timothy  at  Ephesus.  and  Titus  over  the  hundred  cities 
of  Crete,  were  to  exercise  their  jurisdiction.  The  office  then  to 
which,  on  the  supposition  we  have  made,  they  were  appointed, 
was  very  clearly  not  that  of  a  bishop  or  prelate,  for  these 
only  oversee  a  species  of  officers  who  are  below  bishops. 
He  who  has  oversight  or  jurisdiction  over  bishops  is  an 
archbishop,  a  bishop  of  bishops,  and  such,  therefore,  were 
Timothy  and  Titus,  on  this  theory.  They  were  not  then 
prelates,  exercising  the  functions  of  a  superior  order  in  rela- 
tion to  other  orders  having  no  such  powers,  but  were  arch- 
bishops, having  authority  over  coordinate  officers  of  the  same 
order,  and  differing  from  them  only  in  their  rank  and  sta- 
tion. For  an  archbishop  is  among  bishops  only  primus  inter 
pares,  noblissinms  inter  nobiliores.  If,  then,  Timothy  and 
Titus  were  prelates,  they  were  of  the  species  of  archbishops, 
and,  of  course,  were  of  the  same  genus  or  order  with  their 
bishops,  who  were  of  the  order  of  presbyters.  And  thus  are 
we  again  brought  to  the  certain  and  inevitable  conclusion, 
that  Timothy  and  Titus  were  of  the  same  order  with  pres- 
byters. 

In  no  possible  way,  therefore,  nor  by  any  device  or  inge- 
nuity of  man,  can  Timothy  and  Titus  be  fashioned  into 
the  shape  and  proportions  of  prelates.  Timothy  and  Titus 
were  not  apostles.  If  they  were,  where  is  the  proof  of  it? 
Are  they  called  apostles  ?  no  ;  never  in  a  single  case.  It  is 
indeed  said,  that  Timothy  is  called  an  apostle  in  1  Thes.  1 : 
1,  compared  with  1  Thes.  2:  6.  But  the  apostle,  in  the 
second  of  these  passages  speaks  of  himself,  as  is  customary 
with  him,  in  the  plural  number.  Timothy  is  not  alluded  to. 
Are  they  otherwise  designated  ?  Yes,  the  language  of  Paul  is, 
'  Paul  an  apostle  of  Jesus  Christ,  and  Timothy  a  brother?  2  Cor. 
1 :  1,  and  Col.  1 :  1,  where  he  carefully  distinguishes  between 
himself  as  an  apostle,  and  Timothy,  who  was  no  more  than  a 
brother  in  the  ministry  of  Christ.1  Again,  they  wrere  not 
apostles,  because  they  are  expressly  denominated  evangelists, 
who,  as  archbishop  Potter  allows,  were  presbyters,  and,  as  all 
admit,  were  different  from  the  apostles,  as  such,  2  Tim.  4: 
6.  Were  they,  then,  so  treated  by  the  apostles,  as  to  prove 
that  they  were  regarded  by  them  as  on  a  perfect  equality  in 
office  and  in  rank  ?  The  very  contrary  is  the  truth  in  the 
case.  They  w^ere  treated  as  inferior,  subordinate,  and  as 
those  who  were  to  be  charged,  directed,  and  controlled.  (See 
1  Tim.  4:  IS,  and  4:  16,  and  6  :  13,  14;  2  Tim.  4:  1,  9, 13.) 
That  Timothy  and  Titus  were  not  apostles  we  prove,  there- 

1)  See   Barnes'  Episc.  Ex.  p.  41,  &c.  Apostolic  Ch.  p.  87,  &c. 


264  TIMOTHY    AND    TITUS  [BOOK  I. 

fore,  not  only  by  the  presumption  arising  from  the  want  of  any 
evidence  for  the  contrary,  but  by  the  positive  conclusion,  arising 
from  plain  evidence  that  they  were  not.  And  with  this  con- 
clusion primitive  antiquity  concurs,  for,  says  Whitby,  '  as  to 
the  great  controversy,  whether  Timothy  and  Titus  were 
indeed  bishops,  the  one  of  Ephesus,  the  other  of  Crete,  he 
could  find  nothing  of  this  matter,  in  any  writer  of  the  three 
first  centuries,  nor  any  intimation  that  they  bore  that  name.' 

When  it  is  gravely  objected,  that  Timothy  is  authorized  to 
'  charge  some,  that  they  teach  no  other  doctrine ;'  and  Titus 
to  '  ordain  elders  in  every  city'  —  and,  therefore,  that  they 
were  prelates  —  surely  a  very  large  calculation  must  be  made 
upon  the  credulity  of  men.  For,  whether  we  suppose  that 
they  were  or  were  not  prelates,  inasmuch  as  there  were  other 
settled  pastors  in  these  churches,  the  directions  in  question  lead 
to  no  such  inference.  And  were  there  no  other  ministers  at  this 
time  in  these  places,  or  in  either  of  them  ?  Then,  of  necessity, 
these  directions  must  have  been  first  given,  if  given  at  all,  to 
Timothy  and  Titus,  even  as  presbyters.  And  on  the  other 
hand,  were  there  other  ministers  in  these  churches,  then,  as 
Paul  wrote  personally  and  officially  to  Timothy  and  Titus, 
as  his  own  special  agents  in  the  matter,  he  gives  his  instruc- 
tions to  them  personally,  because,  in  so  doing,  he  gave  them 
to  all.  The  apostle  addresses  to  Timothy  and  Titus,  just  as 
exclusively,  all  that  he  inculcates  in  these  epistles,  respecting 
sound  doctrine  and  the  preaching  of  the  gospel,  as  what  re- 
lates to  ordination.1  If,  therefore,  the  argument  holds  good  in 
the  one  case,  it  is  equally  applicable  in  the  other;  which  leads 
to  a  palpable  absurdity,  and,  therefore,  it  is  applicable  to 
neither.  Judas  and  Silas  are  styled  prophets,  and  prophets 
were,  as  we  have  seen,  presbyters,  though  extraordinarily 
gifted.  But  Judas  and  Silas  were  sent  by  the  apostles  to 
exhort  and  strengthen  the  brethren  at  Antioch,  on  just  such 
an  embassage  as  that  given  to  Timothy  and  Titus.  Indeed, 
they  accompanied  the  apostles,  as  their  fellow-laborers,  to  all 
the  churches,  and,  therefore,  on  prelatic  principles,  Judas  and 
Silas  were  prelates,  though  by  all  allowed  to  be  presbyters. 

And  then,  again,  even  were  it  clearly  proved,  that  both 
Timothy  and  Titus  were  deputed  as  prelates,  the  former  of 
Ephesus,  and  the  latter  of  Crete ;  according  to  the  rule  laid 
down  by  Mr.  Palmer,  that '  if  any  rite  even  mentioned  in 
scripture,'  (and  he  includes  under  this  head  episcopacy,)  '  was 

1)  1   Tim.  4:    6-11,  16;  ch :   5:     ch.  2 :  3,  14,  16,22,  26;  ch.  3:  14,16; 
17-23;  ch.  6:  11,  21;  2  Tim.  1:  13;     ch.  4:  1,  5;  Titus,  2,  and  ch.  3 :  1,  10. 


CHAP.  XII.  ]  WERE    NOT    PRELATES.  265 

not  given  by  all  the  apostles,  under  the  express  sanction  of 
the  Holy  Ghost,  or  not  delivered  to  all  the  churches  by  the 
apostles,'  then  it  must  be  recognised  as  designed  only  for 
temporary  uses.' x  But  the  appointment  of  such  prelates,  for 
all  the  churches,  by  all  the  apostles,  and  under  the  guidance 
of  the  Holy  Spirit,  cannot  be  pretended  to,  for  it  is  allowed, 
that  in  many  of  them  no  such  offices  were  placed.  Conse- 
quently, allowing  Timothy  and  Titus  to  have  been  prelates, 
they  were  appointed  only  for  temporary  uses,  to  meet  the 
exigencies  of  these  two  countries. 

Let  the  opinion  of  a  learned  and  a  candid  episcopalian, 
on  this  argument,  be  now  heard.  '  From  these  observations,' 
says  Dr.  Nolan,- '  a  just  estimate  may  be  formed  of  the  force 
of  the  argument,  deduced  from  the  directions  of  St.  Paul,  in 
his  epistles  to  Timothy  and  Titus.  Whether  they  were  ad- 
dressed to  them  as  possessed  of  a  presidency  and  executive 
authority,  among  their  co-presbyters;  or,  as  bishops  possessed 
of  the  despotic  power  of  governing  according  to  the  rule  and 
canon  of  their  own  good  will  and  pleasure,  a  little  attention 
to  the  true  state  of  the  primitive  discipline,  as  formerly  de- 
scribed by  me,  wTill  free  me  from  the  trouble  of  deciding. 
Few  persons,  blessed  with  common  sense,  who  will  take  the 
pains  to  look  into  those  epistles  of  St.  Paul,  will  be  disposed  to 
contend,  that  they  were  private  manuals,  addressed  to  those 
bishops,  for  their  peculiar  direction,  for  the  ordination  of  pres- 
byters and  deacons.  This  concession  being  made,  the  pretext 
for  prolonging  the  dispute  would  be  at  an  end  ;  had  not  the 
apostle  laid  it  at  rest  by  speaking  of  the  presbytery  and  their 
laying  on  of  hands  ;3  thus  recognising  their  right  to  perform 
the  only  ministerial  act,  by  which  bishops  are  distinguished 
from  presbyters,  according  to  the  concession  of  the  most 
determined  admirers  of  the  divine  right  of  the  hierarchy  ; 
and  thus  proving  them  the  same,  as  far  as  it  is  possible  to 
identify  them  by  assigning  them  the  same  office. 4 

§  4.     The  alleged  prelalical  character  of  James  examined. 

The  next  case  of  prelacy  alleged  to  be  found  in  scripture, 
is  that  of  James,  who  is  reputed  to  have  been  bishop  of  Je- 
rusalem.    That  James   was   an   apostle,  we  are  willing  to 

1)  See  on  the  Church,  vol.  ii.  p.  4)  See     on     this     subject,   also, 
70-74.  Prynne's  English  Lordly  Prelacy,  vol. 

2)  Cath.  Car.  of  Christ,  pp.  222,  ii.  p.  484,  &c,  and  on  the  contradicto- 
223.  ry    view    of  prelatists   upon   it,    see 

3)  1  Tim.  4:  14.  Pierce's  Vind.  part  ii.  p.  100. 

34 


266  THE    APOSTLE    JAMES  [BOOK  I. 

admit,1  and  also,  that  he  continued  with  the  other  apostles  to 
reside  at  Jerusalem  until  their  dispersion.  It  is  also  to  be 
allowed,  that  fourteen  years  after  his  conversion,  Paul  found 
him  and  Peter  and  John  at  Jerusalem ;  but  we  are  no  more 
authorized,  from  this  circumstance,  to  regard  James  as  bishop 
of  Jerusalem,  than  we  are  either  Peter  or  John. 

We  are,  however,  referred  to  the  history  of  the  council  held 
at  Jerusalem,  for  triumphant  proof  of  the  prelatic  character 
of  James.  But  this  argument  is  wilhout  any  foundation 
whatever.  That  James  presided  on  that  occasion,  is  a  mere 
gratuitous  assumption,  without  any  proof.  And,  supposing 
him  to  have  in  fact  presided,  there  is  no  manner  of  proof, 
that  he  did  so  in  any  other  character  than  as  a  temporary 
moderator  or  president.  While  on  the  other  hand,  there  is 
positive  proof,  that  the  presbyters  ('the  elders')  were  asso- 
ciated in  that  assembly,  on  the  ground  of  a  perfect  equality 
with  the  apostles,  as  members  of  the  ecclesiastical  council. 
The  council  was  not  ruled  by  the  apostles.  The  questions 
before  them  were  not  decided  by  the  apostles.  The  votes 
given  were  not  confined  to  the  apostles.  The  decree  adopted 
was  not  sent  forth  in  the  name,  or  by  the  exclusive  authority, 
of  the  apostles,  and  much  less  of  James  singly,  but  was 
issued  in  the  general  name  of  the  apostles,  and  presbyters, 
and  brethren,  by  whose  authority  Barnabas  and  Silas  were 
commissioned  to  carry  the  decretal  letter  of  the  synod,  and 
publish  it  to  the  churches.  This  primitive  council,  therefore, 
furnishes  no  warrant  for  the  assumed  prelacy  of  James,  but, 
on  the  contrary,  most  manifestly  contradicts  and  overthrows 
the  entire  theory  on  which  it  is  made  to  rest.2 

Neither  is  it  possible  to  conceive,  that  one  of  our  Lord's 
apostles  could  be  the  bishop  of  a  particular  church.  The 
office  of  an  apostle  and  of  a  prelate  are  entirely  different  in 
their  nature,  objects,  and  ends.  The  office  of  the  apostles 
was  extraordinary,  temporary,  imparted  by  an  immediate 
divine  call,  endowed  with  supernatural  gifts,  having  univer- 
sal dominion,  and  was  designed  to  lay  the  foundations  of  the 
church.  The  office  of  a  prelate  implies  an  ordinary  and 
fixed  charge,  natural  and  spiritual,  but  no  supernatural  gifts, 
and  has  reference  to  one  charge,  and  to  the  constant  over- 
sight of  such  a  charge.     To  convert  an  apostle  into  a  prelate 

1)  Some,    however,    think,    that  2)  See  these  facts  fully  admitted 

James  was  one  of  the  70.  Bower's  and  stated  by  Mr.  Faber,  in  his  Diffic.  of 
Hist,  of  the  Popes,  vol.  i.  p.  6.  See  Ne-  Rom.  B.  ii.  ch.  iii.  (5)  pp.  2S6,  287, 
ander's  Plant,  of  the  Chr.  Ch.  ch.  ii.  Eng.  ed.  See  also  Jameson's  Sum  of 
pp.  2-8.  the  Episcopal  Controv.  p.  71,  and  Dr. 

Mason. 


CHAP.  XII.  ]  WAS    NOT    A    PRELATE.  267 

would,  therefore,  be  a  degradation,  and  an  utter  annihilation, 
of  his  apostleship.1  Besides,  the  church  at  Jerusalem  was,  as 
has  been  seen,  under  presbyterian  government.  For  some 
twelve  years  ihe  apostles  resided  there  and  governed  it  in 
common,  as  a  presbytery.  This  is  admitted  by  archbishop 
Potter,2  and  is  undeniable.  There  was  no  inequality  among 
them.  They  were  all  of  one  order,  and  they  all  cooperated 
and  acted  in  concert.  During  this  period  it  is  most  probable, 
that  Peter  acted  as  their  president  or  moderator.  Having 
thus  presented  a  model  for  the  imitation  of  other  churches,  as 
wc  must  believe,  under  divine  guidance ;  having  ordained 
deacons  to  take  charge  of  the  temporalities  of  the  church, 
and  presbyters,  who  sat  with  them  in  council,  and  presided 
during  their  absence,  to  fill  their  places  and  permanently 
order  and  govern  the  church,  they  all  dispersed  themselves 
in  various  directions,  as  God  gave  them  opportunity.3  Now, 
that  James  may  have  continued  in  the  region  of  Judea,  and 
other  neighboring  districts,  we  do  not  deny.  This  is  very 
probable.  In  this  case  he  may,  like  Paul  at  Antioch,  and 
John  at  Ephesus,  have  exercised  an  apostolic  supervision  of 
the  whole  region.  But  that  he  was  ever  settled  down  at 
Jerusalem,  or  any  where  else,  as  a  fixed  prelate,  is  an  hypoth- 
esis completely  subversive  of  his  apostolic  character.  What 
he  did  as  an  apostle,  he  did  by  that  apostolic  power  and  right 
in  which  he  can  have  no  successor.  And  what  he  did  thus 
accomplish,  as  an  apostle,  was  altogether  different  from  the 
functions  of  a  diocesan  prelate.  Paul,  we  have  seen,  never 
interfered  with  the  internal  government  of  the  churches,  and 
never  undertook  to  exercise  any  prelatic  authority  over  them. 
Neither  did  James,  as  far  as  scripture  informs  us,  ever  inter- 
fere with  that  presbyterial  discipline  which  he,  in  conjunction 
with  the  other  apostles,  had  already  established  at  Jerusalem. 
As  an  apostle,  therefore,  James  was  preeminent,  singular,  and 
unequalled,  by  any  subsequent  ministers  ;  while  as  a  bishop 
he  was  a  presbyter,  and  sat  in  council  with  other  presbyters. 
Besides,  were  we  to  locate  James  at  Jerusalem,  seeing  that 
he  had  already  acted  as  an  associated  presbyter  with  the  oth- 
er apostles  and  presbyters  for  twelve  years  in  that  church, 
where  is  the  evidence  that  he  either  would,  could,  or  did,  as- 
sume to  himself  sole  jurisdiction,  and  appropriate  to  himself 
the  exclusive  power  of  confirmation,  (!!)  ordination,  excom- 
munication, &c.     Doubtless,  when  in  Jerusalem,  he  would  act 

1)  See  Lect.  on  the  Apost.  Succ.  3)  See  Pierce's  Vind.   of  Presb. 
Lect.  ix.                                                         Govt,  partii.  p.  42. 

2)  On  Ch.  Govt,  c  3,  p.  107,  Eng. 
edition- 


268  THE    APOSTLE    JAMES  [fiOOK    I. 

as  the  president  or  moderator  of  the  presbytery,  the  kqoe an>g, 
TtQeaSviego;,  and  receive  all  reverence  for  his  apostolic  dignity. 
But  he  might  do  all  this,  and  in  nothing  contradict  presbyte- 
rian  parity,  while  in  every  thing  essential  he  would  differ 
from  a  prelate.  In  short,  James  might  act  as  presiding  bish- 
op, among  the  other  presbyter-bishops,  and  yet  have  no  man- 
ner of  affinity  to  a  prelalical  bishop.  Neither  could  he  have 
any,  as  long  as  he  stood  related  to  scripturally  constituted 
presbyters ;  since  these,  as  we  have  seen,  possessed  every 
power  and  function  which  can  devolve  upon  any  permanent 
minister  in  the  church,  and  would,  therefore,  leave  no  room 
for  the  introduction  of  a  modern  prelate.  There  is  literally, 
nothing  in  scripture  to  substantiate  the  claims  of  prelatists  in 
reference  to  James,  but  every  thing  to  show  their  absurdity 
and  futility.  We  are,  however,  referred  to  the  fathers,  and 
to  their  testimony  to  his  prelatical  character,  in  order  to  supply 
this  sad  deficiency  of  scriptural  proof.  But  when  we  follow 
prelatists,  even  here  we  find  the  ground  hollow  and  the  foun- 
dation sandy.  Every  thing  is  derived  from  what  is  said  by 
the  two  early  -writers,  Hegesippus  and  Clemens,  from  whom 
Eusebius  and  all  others,  confessedly  derive  their  testimonies. 
So  that  if  their  account  of  the  matter  is  insufficient,  it  can  de- 
rive no  strength  from  continual  repetition.  Now  both  these 
writers  will  be  found  to  be  entirely  destructive  to  the  prelati- 
cal theory.  As  for  Clemens,  he  testifies,  that, '  after  the  ascen- 
sion of  our  Lord,  Peter,  James,  and  John,  the  most  honored 
by  our  Lord,  would  not  yet  contend  for  the  first  degree  of 
honor,  but  chose  James  the  just,  bishop  of  Jerusalem,'  or  as 
Ruffinus  reads  it,  '  bishop  of  the  apostles.'1  This  relates,  it 
will  be  observed,  to  that  period  when  the  apostles  governed 
the  church  as  a  presbytery.  It  refers  only  to  an  office  among 
the  apostles,  as  such.  It  was  merely  a  degree  of  dignity,  to 
which  all  felt  themselves  entitled.  It  implied  no  superiority 
of  order  or  jurisdiction  ;  otherwise,  James  was  made  a  higher 
order  than  that  of  apostle,  and  was  a  pope  over  the  rest.  This, 
the  other  Clemens  actually  makes  him,  calling  him  'prince  of 
bishops,  who  by  his  episcopal  authority  commanded  all  the 
apostles.'2  And  yet,  even  as  late  as  the  time  of  Cyprian,  he, 
with  sixty-eight  other  bishops,  could  in  council  declare, '  neqve 
enim  quisquam  nostrum  episcopum  se  esse  episcoporum  con- 
stituat]  neither  does  any  among  us  constitute  himself  a  bishop 
of  bishops.  And  Burnet  allows  that  the  whole  frame  of  me- 
tropolitans and  patriarchs  is  taken  from  the  division  of  the 

1)  Hist.  1.  ii.  c.  2.  2)  Recognit.  1.  ii. 


CHAP.  XII.]  WAS    NOT    A    PRELATE.  269 

Roman  empire, l  and  that  the  term  archbishop  was  not  used 
in  the  first  century.-  So  that,  even  allowing  the  testimony  of 
Clemens,  it  will  prove  nothing  more  than  that  James  was 
chosen  president  or  moderator  of  the  presbytery  at  Jerusalem. 
But  there  is  no  faith  to  be  put  in  the  testimony  at  all,  since 
Eusebius  derived  it  from  no  certain  or  correct  source.3 

Hegesippus  is  of  no  more  service,  since  he  only  says,  that 
James  ruled  the  church  of  Jerusalem,  ftsta  tav  ctnoarolwi',  with, 
or  in  company  with,  the  apostles.  This,  therefore,  would  fully 
substantiate  our  position,  that  the  apostles  governed  this  church 
for  many  years  as  a  presbytery,  and  as  a  model  of  presbyte- 
rian  polity.  But  prelatists,  after  Jerome,  would  translate  this 
'after  the  apostles.'  This,  however,  is  bad  grammar,  and  im- 
plies that  James,  who  was  martyred  while  all  the  other  apos- 
tles were  still  alive,  (except  the  second  James,)  was  living 
after  they  were  dead,  But  even  allowing  him  the  benefit  of 
a  resurrection,  the  words  do  not  teach  that  he  was  made  pre- 
late, but  only  that  he  ruled  the  church,  that  is,  presided  over  it, 
and  this  he  might  do  as  a  presbyter,  since  it  was  a  part  of  the 
office  and  function  of  presbyters  to  rule.  There  is,  therefore, 
no  help  to  be  found  for  the  prelacy  of  James  in  the  fathers, 
since  these  fountains  of  all  authority  are  uncertain  and  fabu- 
lous, and,  if  admitted,  utterly  subversive  of  it,  one  ancient  au- 
thor making  him  a  universal  bishop,  like  the  other  apostles, 
while  Epiphanius  enrols  him  among  the  first  bishops  of 
Home.4     Alas,  for  the  glorious  uncertainty  of  the  fathers! 

The  further  hearing  of  this  case  may,  therefore,  be  well  sus- 
pended until  some  one  rises  from  the  dead  to  give  evidence 
in  the  case ;  for,  till  then,  who  can  believe,  when  Moses 
and  the  prophets  leave  us  unguided  and  untaught,5  and  since, 
if  we  ask  wisdom  even  from  prelatists,  our  ears  are  stunned 
with  their  discordant  opinions.6 

1)  Vinci,  of  Ch.  of  Scot.  p.  172.  Scott,  p.  394;  Bp.  Taylor,  Episc. Assert. 

2)  Ibid,  p.  187.  pp.  16, 70,  71.      The  inconvenience  of 

3)  So  allows  Valesius,  a  learned  the  former  notion  is  apprehended  by 
Romanist.  See  Baxter's  Diocesan  others,  who  earnestly  contend,  this 
Churches,  p.  70.  James  was   the  son  of  Alpheus,  and 

4)  See  Baxter's  Diocesan  Church-  one  of  the  twelve.  This  way  goes  Bp. 
es,  p.  71;  Boyse's  Anct.  Episc.  p.  319  ;  Pearson,  Lect.  in  Acta,  p.  58;  Bp. 
Dr.  Rice  in  Evang.  Mag.  vol.  x.p.  597.  .  Usher.  Prolegom.  in   Ignatium,  c.  16 ; 

5)  On  this  case  see  Baxter's  Dio-  Dr.  Whitby,  pref.  to  the  Epistle  of 
cesan  Churches,  London,  1082,  p.  70,  James  ;  Dr.  Cave,  Life  of  St.  James  ; 
&c;  Dr.  Rice  in  Evang.  Mag.  vol.  x.  Mr.  Dodwell,  Diss,  in  Irena>um,  in 
p.  59G,&c;  Boyse's  Anct  Episc.  pp.  praef.  and  Parnen.p.  18.  But  then  Dr. 
310-319;  Jameson's  Sum  of  the  Epis-  Barrow's  argument  is  directly  contra- 
copal  Controv.  p.  71.  ry  to  this  notion  ;  for  he  contends,  an 

6)  Some  of  them  earnestly  con-  apostle  could  not  become  a  bishop,  P. 
tend,  this  James  was  not  the  son  of  Suprem.  pp.  82-84.  See  Pierce's 
Alpheus,  or  one  of  the  twelve.    So  Dr.  Vind.  of  Presb.  Ord.  part  ii.  p.  100. 


270  THE    SEVEN     ANGELS  [BOOK  I. 


§  5.      The  alleged  prelatical  character  of  the  seven    angels 
of  the  seven  churches  examined. 

We  are  now  to  examine  into  the  claims  preferred  for  the 
prelatic  order  of  the  angels  of  the  seven  churches  of  Asia 
Minor,  spoken  of  in  the  book  of  Revelation.  Now  these 
claims  may  be  refuted  by  an  examination  of  the  circumstan- 
ces of  the  case,  and  of  the  epistles  themselves.  As  it  regards 
the  circumstances  of  the  case,  let  the  following  remarks  be 
attentively  considered.  St.  John,  it  is  to  be  remembered, 
lived  to  the  very  close  of  the  first  century  of  the  christian  era, 
and  touched,  as  it  were,  the  beginning  of  the  second.1  He 
continued  at  Ephesus  to  the  very  time  of  Trajan,  about  one 
hundred  years  after  Christ.2  Clemens  Alexandrinus  relates, 
that'  St.  John,  being  returned  from  his  banishment  at  Patmos, 
went  about  the  country  near  to  Ephesus,  both  to  form  and 
settle  churches,  where  he  saw  occasion,  and  to  admit  into 
the  order  of  the  clergy  such  as  were  marked  out  to  him 
by  the  Spirit.'3  It  was  during  this  period,  and  while  the 
apostle  was  yet  alive,  that  the  epistles  in  question  were  sent 
through  him,  by  Christ.4  They  must,  therefore,  be  under- 
stood in  accordance  with  this  fact. 

Now  it  has  been  shown,  that  the  only  standing  and  per- 
manent officers  appointed  in  the  churches  by  the  other  apos- 
tles, were  bishops  or  presbyters,  and  deacons.  Timothy  and 
Titus  were  extraordinarily  endowed  ministers,  employed  by 
the  apostles  on  temporary  and  extraordinary  business,  and 
there  is  no  ground  for  supposing  that  any  permanent  order, 
having  similar  powers  or  functions,  were  instituted.  For 
such  there  is  no  name,  no  commission,  no  description,  no 
qualifications,  no  directions,  in  all  their  epistles.  In  all  the 
churches,  as  in  Jerusalem,  Ephesus,  Antioch,  Corinth,  &c,  the 
apostles  ordained  and  settled  a  plurality  of  presbyters,  but 
no  prelates.  Now  where  is  the  proof,  that  when  these  other 
apostles  were  dead,  John  altered  this  plan,  and  introduced  a 
new  order  of  ministers  into  the  church  ?  Or  how  can  we 
imagine,  that  Christ,  having  raised  up  the  apostles  for  the 
very  purpose  of  permanently  organizing  and  founding  the 
churches,  would  have  left  the  most  important  part  of  its  entire 
polity  to  the  last  surviving  apostle  ?     Scripture  nowhere  inti- 

1)  See  Burton's  Bampton   Lect.  3)   Clem.    Alex,  de   Divit.   Salv. 
p.  3.                                                               num.  xii. ;  Euseb.  Eccl.  Hist.  B.  iii. 

2)  Wake's   Apost.     Fath.     Prel.     c.  23. 

Disc.  §  14,  p.  10.  4)  Wake,  as  above,  p.  11. 


CHAP.  XII.]  WERE    NOT    PRELATES.  271 

mates  such  a  change.  History  makes  no  mention  of  it. 
None  of  the  ancient  churches,  councils,  or  doctors,  have  ever 
attributed  such  an  institution  to  John  ;  while  Dr.  Hammond, 
and  all  his  followers,  maintain  that  prelacy  did  not  commence 
till  after  the  close  of  scripture,  which  was  about  the  period  of 
John's  death.1  We  conclude,  therefore,  that  the  apostle  John 
could  not  have  made  any  change  in  the  order  of  the  church, 
and  that  these  epistles  must  be  understood  in  accordance  with 
the  presbyterian  model  erected  by  the  other  apostles. 

Let  us  now  suppose,  with  most  prelatists,  that  the  system 
of  prelacy  had  been  established  by  Christ  and  his  apostles  as 
the  permanent  order  of  the  church.  It  must  have  occupied 
the  same  prominence  in  the  view  of  christians  then,  that  it 
does  with  prelatists  now ;  and  have  called  forth  the  same 
earnestness  in  holding  it  forth  to  view,  and  in  proclaiming  its 
importance.  Now,  in  contrast  with  these  reasonable  expec- 
tations, to  pass  by  at  present  the  other  apostles,  let  St.  John 
be  heard  giving  his  testimony  in  the  case  ;  let  him  be  heard, 
in  all  his  epistles,  calling  himself  a  presbyter,  and  identifying 
himself  with  presbyters  as  the  permanent  order  of  the  minis- 
try ;  let  him  be  heard  describing  the  ministry  of  the  church 
triumphant  under  the  same  order  of  presbyters,  and  nowhere 
distinctly  announcing  the  system  of  the  prelatic  hierarchy ; 
and  who  can  resist  the  conclusion,  that  he  knew  nothing  c-f 
it ;  that  these  epistles,  which  are  obscure,  must  be,  therefore, 
misconceived  by  prelatists;  and  that  their  assumption  that 
they  speak  of  prelates  must  be  utterly  groundless. 

Again,  when  these  epistles  were  written,  John  was  yet 
alive.  Now  it  is  a  continual  argument  with  prelatists,  that 
during  their  lives,  the  apostles  retained  in  their  own  hands 
the  government  of  the  churches  over  which  they  presided.2 
In  this  way  is  it  attempted  to  account  for  the  presbyterian 
character  of  the  churches  already  alluded  to.  Now  this  argu- 
ment will  work  both  ways.  And  as  it  would  prove  that 
Timothy  and  Titus  could  be  nothing  more  than  the  curates  or 
deputies  of  Paul,  so  will  it  also  show  that  these  seven  angels, 
being  placed  in  those  very  churches  over  which  John  pre- 
sided, and  which  he  continued  to  visit  and  to  order  till  his 
death,  were  nothing  more  than  presbyters,  since  John  was 
still  their  prelate,  and  of  course  could  not  have  seven  other 
prelates  in  the  same  diocese.     We  thus  perceive,  even  on 

1  )  See   Baxter's  Episc.  part    ii.  the  Ch.     '  While  the  apostles  lived,  it 

pp.  135, 136.  is  probable  there  were  no  fixed  bish- 

2)  See  Stillingfleet,  Unreas.  Sep.  ops.' 
part  iii.  §  13  ;  Bilson's  Perpet.  Govt,  of 


272  THE    SEVEN    ANGELS  [BOOK  I. 

acknowledged  prelatical  principles,  the  utter  absurdity  of  the 
attempted  argument  from  these  seven  angels. 

But  it  may  be  said,  that  Paul  and  John  were  both  arch- 
bishops, and  that  these  persons  were  still  prelates  under  their 
oversight.  This,  I  know,  has  been  alleged,1  and  is  the  only 
sensible  plea  which  can  be  offered.  But  it  is  equally  fatal  to 
the  whole  system  of  prelacy.  For  it  is  universally  admitted, 
that  archbishops  and  bishops  do  not  differ  as  to  order,  but 
only  as  to  the  extent  of  their  jurisdiction.  They  are  one  and 
the  same  in  order.  These  seven  angels,  therefore,  as  also 
Timothy  and  Titus,  were  one  and  the  same  in  order  with  the 
apostles,  that  is,  in  their  ordinary  ministerial  character.  But 
these  apostles,  it  has  been  proved,  were,  in  their  ordinary 
character,  presbyters ;  and  so  also,  therefore,  were  Timothy, 
Titus,  and  these  seven  angels.  Prelates  they  could  not  be, 
because  this  would  involve  the  inadmissible  supposition,  that 
there  were  many  prelates  in  one  and  the  same  limited 
diocese  ;  and  the  equally  contradictory  fact,  —  we  mean  on 
prelatic  principles,  —  that  as  these  angels  were  the  fixed  pas- 
tors of  single  churches,  the  original  bishops  were  nothing 
more  nor  less  than  parochial  bishops,  that  is,  presbyterian 
pastors.  And,  as  if  to  show  the  baselessness  of  the  prelatic 
hypothesis  about  these  angels,  by  the  endless  confusion  and 
contradiction  to  which  it  leads,  John,  we  are  told,  made  Poly- 
carp  bishop  of  Smyrna,2  and  this  same  Polycarp  was  univer- 
sal bishop,3  that  is,  a  local  preacher  was  a  universal  bishop 
or  primate,  and  that,  too,  while  his  universal  bishop  was  alive. 
To  the  same  gross  absurdity  we  are  also  brought  by  the  opin- 
ion advocated  by  certain  learned  men,  that  these  cities  were 
metropolitan  cities,  and  their  bishops  metropolitan  bishops. 
Of  course,  this  never  could  afford  any  proof  for  the  divine 
institution  of  prelates,  since  there  might  be  metropolitans  over 
a  number  of  presbyterially  organized  churches ;  but  in  con- 
stituting them  metropolitans,  what  are  we  to  make  of  John  ? 
and  who  can  swallow  the  camel  of  metropolitan  churches  at 
that  period  of  Christianity?4  Presbyters,  therefore,  as  we 
hold  the  office,  will  answer  all  the  representations  and  diffi- 
culties in  the  case,  and  harmonize  the  whole.  And  that  our 
views  are  correct,  is  most  clear  from  the  testimony  of  Clem- 
ens, already  adduced,  since  he  distinctly  says,  that  the  apostle 
'  went  about  the  country  both  to   form  and  settle  churches, 

1)  E.  g.  in    God's    Govt,  of  his  3)  Ibid,  p.  241. 

Church.  Lond.  1641,  p.  33.  4)  See  Jus.  Div.  Min.  Angl.  part 

2)  Archbishop      Wake's    Apost.    ii.  p.' 81. 
Fath.  pp.  241,  242,  Eng.  ed.  Bagster. 


CHAP.    XII.]  WERE    NOT    PRELATES.  273 

and  to  admit  into  the  order  of  the  clergy,  such  as  wore 
marked  out  to  him  by  the  Spirit,'  whore  he  evidently  recog- 
nises only  one  order  of  the  sacred  office,  according  to  our 
principles.1 

So  much  for  the  circumstances  of  the  case.  Let  us  now 
look  into  the  book  itself.  The  whole  argument  for  the 
prelacy  of  these  personages  depends  on  the  use  of  the  term 
angel.  Now  it  must  be  evident  to  every  one,  who  will  for  a 
moment  consider,  that  no  argument  for  the  divine  authority 
of  an  order  of  ministers,  distinct  from  and  superior  to  others, 
can  be  drawn  from  the  use  of  a  term,  which  is  in  itself  un- 
questionably mystical ;  which  occurs  in  the  most  mystical 
and  therefore  obscure  book  of  scripture  ;  and  which  has  re- 
ceived the  most  various  interpretations,  in  all  ages,  and  by 
divines  of  every  portion  of  the  church.  To  make  this  word 
a  proof  of  the  existence  of  prelates  in  those  churches,  is  not  to 
argue  from  what  is  known  to  what  is  less  known,  but  to  prove 
ignotum  per  ignotius,  and  thus  to  authenticate  what  is  itself 
doubtful,  by  what  is  perfectly  indeterminate.2 

The  term  angel,  as  Augustine,  in  his  homily  on  the  words 
'I  will  remove  thy  candlestick,'3  supposes,  and  as  Ambrose, 
Aretas,  and  others,  also  teach,4  may  be  taken  collectively  as 
symbolical  of  the  whole  church,  in  its  visible  and  organized 
form ;  for  as  these  epistles  are  in  the  beginning  addressed  to 
the  angel  of  the  church,  so  are  they,  in  the  conclusion,  ad- 
dressed to  the  churches.  (Rev.  22 :  16.)  To  the  churches,  also, 
does  St.  John  direct  the  entire  book.  (Rev.  1:  4,  and  10 : 
11,  and  Rev.  2  :  7,  11,  17.) 5  The  term,  therefore,  may  well 
refer  to  all  the  authorized  ministers  in  these  churches,  regarded 
as  united  in  one  government.  There  is  an  evident  adapta- 
tion in  the  form  of  the  address  throughout  these  epistles,  to 
this  construction  of  their  meaning.  (Seech.  13:  and  ch.  17.) 
Thus,  in  Rev.  2 :  24,  it  is  written,  '  but  unto  you  I  say,  and 
unto  the  rest  in  Thyatira.'  (So  Rev.  2  :  10,  13,  &c.)  And 
thus,  in  the  contents  of  our  authorized  Bible,  which  was 
translated  and  arranged  under  prelatic  direction,  the  angels 
are  said  to  be  'the  ministers  of  the  churches.'6 

Besides,  we  are  assured,  that,  in   the    Ephesian  church, 

1)  See  in    Wake's    Prel.    Disc.  4)  Ambrose,  in  Apoc.  in  Ander- 
P-  31.  son's   Defence,  pp.   12S,    131.     Also, 

2)  Div.  Right  of  the  IMin.  part  ii.  Primasius,   Haymo,    Bede,  in  ibid,  p. 
p.  75;    Theologia  Symbolica  nonest  135;  and  Dr.  Hammond,  p.  134. 
argumentativa.  5)   See    Anderson's  Defence,  pp. 

3)  Seein  Wks.  vol.  x.  hom.xi.  in  130-134;    Div.   Right   of   the    Min. 
Apoc.  and  also  de  doctr.  Christ,  lib.  p.  77. 

ii*.  P-  30.  6)  See  chap.  ii.  Contents. 

35 


274  THE    SEVEN    ANGELS  [BOOK  I. 

there  were  several  presbyters,  (see  Acts,  20,)  as  we  have 
already  seen  ;  and  that  there  were  such  also  in  the  other 
churches  will  be  granted.  Now  these  presbyters  must  be 
referred  to,  either  under  the  term  candlestick,  and  thus  be 
classed  among  the  laity,  or  under  the  terms  stars  and  angels, 
especially  as  these  are  described  as  the  angels  of  the  seven 
churches,  not  the  seven  angels  of  the  seven  churches.  (Rev. 
1 :  20.)  Again,  the  term  angel,  as  is  generally  allowed,  is  a 
term  expressive  of  office,  and  not  of  order  ;  and,  therefore,  it 
alone  cannot  determine  the  order  of  the  individual,  or  indi- 
viduals, to  whom  it  is  applied.  If  it  is  said,  these  angels  were 
officially  empowered  to  rule,  let  it  be  remembered,  that  the 
apostle  gives  the  teaching  minister  precedence  over  him  who 
ruled ;  (1  Tim.  5: 17  ;)  and  that  in  this  very  book  the  presby- 
ters, by  whom  we  are  to  understand,  as  archbishop  Potter 
teaches,  the  ministry  of  the  church,  are  represented  as  next  the 
throne  of  Christ,  while  the  angels  are  placed  further  off.  But 
further,  it  is  believed  by  chronologists,  that  Timothy  was 
alive  when  this  epistle  was  addressed  to  the  church  of 
Ephesus ;  and  are  we  to  believe,  that  Timothy  is  the  individual 
here  so  severely  rebuked  I1  It  would  also  appear,  that  Anti- 
pas,  the  minister  at  Pergamos,  had  been,  at  this  time,  mar- 
tyred, and  that,  therefore,  there  could  have  been  no  bishop 
there. 

Again,  it  is  to  be  observed,  that  the  apostle  John  never 
once,  either  in  this  book,  or  in  his  gospel  or  epistles,  uses  the 
term  bishop,  while  he  does  employ  that  of  presbyter,  and  twice 
calls  himself  a  presbyter.  Neither  does  he  ever  intimate, 
that  there  is  any  superiority  in  one  minister  over  another, 
but  on  the  contrary,  he  severely  chides  Diotrephes,  who  had 
ambitiously  assumed  some  such  superiority.  It  must,  there- 
fore, be  made  very  clear,  before  we  can  believe  it,  that,  in 
self-contradiction,  the  apostle  does  here  formally  recognise  a 
higher  order  of  ministers,  and  make  himself  an  archbishop. 
Nay,  in  this  very  book,  the  term  angel  is  used  indubitably 
as  a  collective  noun,  signifying  not  any  one  individual,  nor 
any  one  order  of  individuals,  but  a  human  ministry,  in  gen- 
eral, (Rev.  14:6.)  '  While  it  looks,  therefore,  somewhat  un- 
civil,' to  use  the  words  of  Dr.  Mason, 2 '  to  contradict  the  positive 
assertion  of  prelatists,  that  these  angels  were  prelates,  we 
must  contradict  it;  for  it  is  not  true.  And  if,  in  proving  it 
to  be  false,  we  prove  its  authors  either  to  be  ignorant  of  the 

1)  See  Div.  Right  of  the    Min.  2)  See  Dr.  Mason's  Wks.  vol.  iii. 

p.  78.  pp.  146-149. 


CHAP.  XII.]  WERE    NOT    PRELATES.  275 

scriptures,  or  wilfully  to  misrepresent  them,  we  cannot  help 
it  One  passage,  from  the  book  of  Revelation  itself,  over- 
turns the  very  foundation  upon  which  Cyprian  and  his  asso- 
ciates have  reared  their  '  absolute  demonstration.'  I  saw, 
says  the  prophet,  another  angel  fly  in  the  midst  of  heaven, 
having  the  everlasting  gospel  to  preach  unto  them  that  dwell 
on  the  earth,  and  to  every  nation,  and  kindred,  and  tongue, 
and  people,  (Rev.  14:  6.)  Heaven,  in  this  book,  is  the  as- 
certained symbol  of  the  christian  church,  from  which  issues 
forth  the  '  ministers  of  grace '  to  the  nations.  As  the  gospel 
is  preached  only  by  men,  this  angel,  who  has  it  to  preach  to 
'  every  nation,  and  kindred,  and  tongue,  and  people,'  must  be 
the  symbol  of  a  human  ministry.  And,  as  it  is  perfectly  evi- 
dent, that  no  single  man  can  thus  preach  it,  but  that  there 
must  be  a  great  company  of  preachers  to  carry  it  to  '  every 
nation,  and  kindred,  and  tongue,  and  people,'  the  angel  men- 
tioned in  the  Revelation  is,  and  of  necessity  must  be,  the 
symbol  of  that  great  company.  We  might  produce  other 
examples,  but  this  is  decisive.  It  shows  the  proposition  of 
Potter  and  Cyprian,  &c,  to  be  one  of  the  most  rash  and  un- 
founded assertions  into  which  the  ardor  of  party  ever  be- 
trayed a  disputant.  Assuming  it  now  as  proved,  that  the 
term  '  angel '  is  applied  in  this  book  to  a  collective  body,  or  a 
number  of  men  joined  in  a  common  commission,  we  demand 
the  reason  of  its  being  restricted  to  an  individual,  in  the 
epistles  to  the  churches  of  Asia.  Signifying  '  a  messenger,' 
it  is,  in  itself,  as  applicable  to  any  preacher  of  the  gospel,  as 
to  a  diocesan  bishop.  If  he  was  of  old,  what  most  of  the 
diocesans  are  now,  he  was,  of  all  the  clergy  in  his  diocese, 
the  one  who  had  the  least  claim  to  the  title.  To  preach  the 
word,  to  declare  the  whole  counsel  of  God,  to  instruct  the 
people,  we  are  told,  plainly  enough,  are  not  the  peculiar  attri- 
butes of  the  bishop.  By  what  rule  of  propriety  should  he  be 
characterized  by  symbols  which  are  foreign  from  his  appro- 
priate functions  ?  By  symbols  which  describe  exactly  the 
functions  of  those  ministers  whom,  we  are  taught,  they  do 
not  represent.' 

If  we  will  allow  ourselves  to  be  directed,  in  this  inquiry, 
by  the  meaning  attached  to  this  phrase,  '  angel,'  in  the  Jew- 
ish church,  (and  it  is  very  natural  to  suppose  that  the  apostle 
would  employ  it  in  its  current  and  understood  sense,)  then 
there  can  be  no  reasonable  doubt,  that,  by  the  term  angel,  we 
are  to  understand  either  the  presbyters  collectively,  or  their 
presiding  officer,  or  moderator,  to  whom  this  name  was  ap- 
plied, in  the  order  of  the  Jewish  synagogue.     There  was,  as 


276  THE    SEVEN    ANGELS  [BOOK  I. 

Lightfoot  and  others  have  shown,  a  public  minister  in  every 
synagogue,  called  the  angel  of  the  church,  or  bishop  of  the 
congregation.  This  officer  was  an  ordinary  minister  of  one 
particular  synagogue,  and  nothing  like  a  diocesan  prelate  ; 
and  as  the  term  in  question  is  employed  in  reference  to  the 
very  subject  before  us,  and  as  applicable  to  that  very  syn- 
agogue service  from  which  the  christian  forms  are  confessed- 
ly in  great  part  drawn,  until  sufficient  reason  can  be  shown 
that  it  is  here  used  in  another  sense,  we  must  feel  abundantly 
justified  in  rejecting  every  other,  and  retaining  this. 

But  it  is  to  be  still  further  urged,  as  a  plain  refutation  of 
the  prelatic  character  of  these  angels,  and  in  proof  of  the 
position  that  they  were  congregational  ministers,  and  not 
diocesan  prelates,  that  the  stars  are  represented  as  fixed  in 
their  several  candlesticks,  and  therefore  as  parochial  bishops, 
and  not  prelates.  Take  them  at  their  very  best  estate,  there- 
fore, and  it  is  impossible  to  magnify  the  proportions  of  these 
angels  into  diocesan  bishops.  Even  in  the  fourth  century 
there  were  no  more  christians  at  Ephesus  than  could  meet  in 
one  church,  or,  at  most,  in  two.1  So  also,  as  Ignatius  in- 
forms us,  the  church  at  Smyrna  ordinarily  worshipped  and 
communicated  in  one  church,  even  in  his  time.2  The  same 
is  shown  by  Ignatius  to  have  been  the  case  with  the  church 
at  Philadelphia,  and  elsewhere.  With  what  face,  then,  can  it 
be  pretended,  that  these  angels  were  prototypes  of  existing 
diocesan  bishops,  with  their  dioceses  of  indefinite  extent, 
embracing  an  indefinitely  large  number  of  churches,  when 
they  were  no  more,  supposing  them  to  be  individuals,  than 
the  presiding  officers  of  their  several  presbyterial  churches  ? 
They  were,  in  fact,  parish  ministers,  and  not  diocesan  pre- 
lates. Dioceses  there  were  none  for  two  hundred  and  sixty 
years  after  Christ,  and,  of  necessity,  there  could  be  no  dioce- 
sans, nor  any  officers  tantamount  to  prelates.  Let  it  then  be 
acknowledged,  as  Beza  has  said,  that  by  these  angels  were 
meant  the  presidents,  in  the  several  presbyteries  connected 
with  these  seven  churches,  and  how  will  this  advantage  the 
cause  of  prelacy  ?  In  no  manner  or  degree.  Such  presi- 
dents we  believe  to  have  existed  in  the  apostolic  churches,  and 
to  have  had  other  presbyters  associated  with  them,  as  well  as 
seniors  or  elders,  and  deacons,  in  proportion  to  the  extent  and 
demands  of  their  parish.  But  where  the  church  was  small, 
there  the  president  would  be  found  without  any  other  pres- 

1)  See  Owen's  Plea,  p.  30,  and  2)  See  shown  in  Owen's  Plea,  p. 

Clarkson's  Prim.  Episc.  33,  and  Clarkson,  and  in  B.  ii.  ch.  ii. 


CHAP.  XII.]  WERE    NOT    PRELATES.  277 

byters,  as  in  the  case  of  Gregory  Thaumaturgus.  Now  such 
presidents  are  our  presbyterian  pastors,  and  our  moderators. 
Our  existing  pastors  and  moderators  are  clothed  with  all  the 
powers,  and  discharge  all  the  duties,  of  these  apostolical  and 
primitive  presidents.  But,  that  these  angels  were  more  than 
this,  cannot  be  proved.  Where  is  it  proved  ?  Where  are 
they  said  to  be  of  an  order  distinct  from  and  superior  to 
presbyters  ?  In  what  epistle  are  they  said  to  possess  or  to 
exercise  the  sole  power  of  jurisdiction,  or  of  ordination  ? 
When  Christ  gave  his  promises  to  Peter,  did  he  not  do  it  in 
the  name  of  the  rest  of  the  apostles,  as  Cyprian,  Augustine, 
Jerome,  Optatus,  and  others  say,1  and  not  as  implying  any 
preeminence  or  lordly  supremacy  in  Peter  ?  And  when  he 
directs  his  epistles  to  the  churches  of  Asia,  to  the  angels  of 
those  churches,  by  what  logic  are  we  to  conclude  that  these 
angels,  if  individual  personages,  were  of  a  superior  order  to 
their  fellow-angels,  or  any  thing  more  than  the  presidents  of 
these  churches  ?  This  whole  argument  is  a  mere  petitio 
principii,  a  begging  of  the  question,  and,  when  forced  to  its 
utmost  limits,  is  favorable  to  presbytery  and  not  to  prelacy. 

Neither  can  prelatists  discover  any  solid  ground  on  which 
to  build  their  vain  hypothesis.  They  are,  therefore,  found  to 
contradict,  gainsay,  and  refute  one  another,  and  thus  prove 
the  futility  of  their  scheme.  '  We  see,'  says  Stillingfleet, 
'  what  miserable,  unaccountable  arguments  those  are,  which 
are  brought  for  any  kind  of  government,  from  metaphorical, 
or  ambiguous  expressions,  or  names  promiscuously  used.'2 

1)  See  Reynold's  Confer,  with  155.  Boyse's  Anct.  Episc.  p.  351,  &c. 
Hart,  c.  4,  §  3,  ad  finem.  Pierce's  Vind.  of  Presb.  Ordin.  part  ii. 

2)  See  the  very  strong  language  p.  103.  Dr.  Rice  in  Evang.  Mag.  vol. 
of  archdeacon  Mason,  in  Vind.  of  the  x.  p.  594.  Jameson's  Cyprianus  Isot. 
Ref.  Ch.  pp.  173-176,  in  Goode's  Div.  p.  449.  Baxter  on  Episc.  pp.  69,  70. 
Rule  of  Faith,  vol.  ii.  pp.  98,  99.  On  Smectymnuus,  pp.  52-59.  Milton's 
this  whole  argument,  see,  as  above,  Prose  Wks.  vol.  i.p.  187,  &c.  Prynne's 
Jameson's  Fundamentals  of  the  Hie-  English  Lordly  Prelacy,  vol.  ii.  ch.  ix. 
rarchy,  part  ii.  §  5,  pp.  140,  &c.  154,  pp.  479—184. 


CHAPTER   XIII. 


THE.  ALLEGED    PJIELATICAL    CHARACTER    OF    THE    JEWISH 
CHURCH    EXAMINED    AND    DISPROVED. 


§  1.     The  argument,  founded  upon  the  prelatical  character 
of  the   Jewish  hierarchy,  examined. 

Having  thus  disposed  of  the  objections  urged  by  prelatists 
against  the  presbyterian  system,  founded  upon  the  alleged 
existence  of  certain  prelates  in  the  apostolic  churches,  we 
now  proceed  to  notice  some  other  objections. 

There  is  no  argument  more  strongly  urged  by  prelatists, 
than  the  analogy  between  their  hierarchy  and  that  of  the 
Jewish  church.  '  There  were  then  three  orders  of  priests  in 
the  Jewish  church ;  there  was  the  high  priest,  and  the  sons 
of  Aaron,  and  the  Levites.' ]  The  Levites  are  thus  made  to 
correspond  to  the  order  of  deacons  —  the  priests  to  that  of 
presbyters  —  and  the  high  priest  to  that  of  prelates.  This 
was  probably  the  favorite  argument  with  ancient  prelatists.3 
Certain  it  is,  that  it  is  the  main  stay,  the  corner-stone  of  the 
popish  hierarchists.3 

Now,  on  this  argument,  we  remark,  First,  it  is  absurd. 
To  infer  the  character  of  the  christian  ministry  from  an 
abrogated  priesthood,  is  surely  an  absurdity,  which  might 
well  have  been  left  to  an  age  of  darkness.4     Speaking  of  this 

1)  See  Dodwell's  One  Altar,  Bev-  2)  See  Epiphanius.  Haer.  xxix.  § 

eridge's   Cod.   Can.  Ecc.  Prim.  Vind.  4,  in  Wilson,  p.  145. 
Lib.  ii.  c.  11,  §  11.     Burnet's  Obs.  on  3)  Bellarmine  de    Cler.  cap.  14. 

the  2d  Canon,  p.  52.     Potter  on   Ch.  Tileni    Paraenesis.   cap.   2.      On  this 

Govt.  pp.  48,  49,   Am.  ed.     Wks.   of  basis  is  erected  the  supremacy  of  the 

Rev.  W.  Jones,  of  Nayland,  vol.  iv.  p.  pope.     See  this  very  fully  illustrated, 

355.     See  also  Saravia  on  the  Priest-  in  Jameson's  Cyprianus  Isot.  pp.  178, 

hood.      Dr.   Monro's   Inquiry,  p.  27.  1S3,  184,  264,  273,  275. 
Sage's   Vind.  of  Cypr.   Age,  ch.  ix.  4)  See  Letters  on  the  Fathers,  p. 

§  4,  &c.  3,  by  an  Episcopalian. 


CHAP.  XIII.]       THE    JEWISH    CHURCH    NOT    TRELATICAL.  279 

argument,  Dr.  Nolan  says:1  'But  as  analogical  proofs, 
however  ingenious  and  pretty,  in  the  way  of  illustration, 
supply  but  pitiful  substitutes  for  argument,  I  must  be 
pardoned  for  passing  them  over  without  a  further  expression 
even  of  my  contempt.  It  will  suffice  to  observe  upon  this 
subject  at  present,  that  they  arc  so  little  conclusive,  in  estab- 
lishing the  required  similarity,  that  opinions,  as  wide  as  those 
which  they  pretend  to  reconcile,  are  held  as  to  the  objects 
which  they  undertake  to  assimilale,  so  little  apparent  is  the 
resemblance.  They  are  thus  cited,  with  equal  justice  and 
confidence,  by  those  who  suppose  the  government  of  the 
church  committed  to  presbyters  or  bishops.'  Secondly;  this 
argument  proves  too  much  for  anglican  prelates.  Since,  if 
it  proves  any  thing,  it  will  prove  the  supremacy  of  a  single 
head  over  the  whole  church,  with  temporal  jurisdiction  also, 
and  not  the  existence  of  an  order  of  prelates,  each  of  whom 
claims  independent  jurisdiction.  But  this  destroys  the  supreme 
headship  of  Christ,  and  must  therefore  be  rejected.2  It  would 
prove,  also,  not  three  orders,  nor  even  seven,  but  something 
like  thirty-one  ;  since,  under  the  Jewish  hierarchy,  there  were 
1.  Levites.  2.  Heads  of  families  over  them.  3.  Rulers, 
or  the  chief  of  the  heads.  4.  over  them,  Ithamar.  5.  over 
both  priests  and  Levites,  Eleazer.  6.  over  all,  the  high 
priest.3  The  priests  were  divided  into  the  several  orders  of 
Katholickon ;  the  seven  Immarcalim ;  the  Gizbarim ;  over- 
seers, of  whom  there  were  fifteen  orders,  and  presidents.  So, 
also,  the  Levites  were  divided  into  the  templar  levites, 
porters,  singers,  musicians,  treasurers,  provincial  levites,  &c.4 
Thirdly,  this  argument  has  led  to  great  and  serious  evils. 
This  idea  being  once  introduced,  drew  after  it  other  errors.  It 
led  to  the  monopolizing  of  all  power  by  the  clergy;  to  ihe 
exclusion  of  the  laity  from  all  ecclesiastical  rights;  to  the 
doctrine  of  sacramental  efficacy,  ritual  formality,  and  ceremo- 
nial purification;  to  the  doctrine  of  a  priesthood;  sacrifices, 
altars  and  penances ;  absolutions,  jubilees,  and  indulgences  ; 

1 )  The  Cathol.  Char,  of  Christ'y.  vites,  no  man  doubteth  ;  and  that  there 
pp.  238,  239.  was  not  a  parity,  either  betwixt  the 

2)  See,  under  argument  fourth,  priests  or  betwixt  the  Levites  them- 
this  position  made  good  by  further  selves,  is  manifest,  by  the  word  of 
arguments.  God  ;  wherein  mention  is  made  of  the 

'>)  See  Stillingfleet,  Iren.  part  ii.  heads  and  rulers,  both  of  the  one  and 

ch.  iii.  p.    172.      Archbishop     Usher  of  the  other,  1  Chron.  24:  0>,   31,   and 

says,  also,  (The  Original  of  Bishops  Ezra  8 :   29. 

and  .Metropolitans,  briclly  laid   down.  4)   See  Lewis's  Ori^ines  Hebraeae 

Printed  1703,  in  Scott's  Coll.  of  Tracts,  or  Antiq.  of  the  Heb.  Republic.  Lond. 

Lond.  1S14,  4to.  vol.  xii.  p.  268,)  '  that  1774,  vol.  i.  B.  ii.  c.  5  and  12. 
the  priests  were  superior  to  the  Le- 


280  THE    JEWISH    HIERARCHY  [BOOK  I. 

to  the  entire  ritual  of  popery,  into  which  was  incorporated  the 
great  mass  of  the  Mosaic ;  to  the  spiritual  despotism  of  popery ; 
to  the  national  establishments  of  Christianity ;  to  the  system 
of  tithes ;  and  to  the  secular  aggrandizement  of  the  clergy.1 
These  and  other  pestiferous  evils,  which  have  so  deformed 
and  corrupted  the  church  of  God,  may  be  all  traced  to  this 
original  fountain  of  bitterness  and  death.2  The  theoretical 
and  practical  evils  to  which  these  notions  of  a  theocracy  gave 
rise,  lasted  through  many  centuries,  and,  with  the  exception 
of  the  scattered  witnesses  of  the  truth  in  each  century,  were 
first  opposed  by  the  pure  light  of  genuine  Christianity,  diffused 
by  the  reformation.3 

Fourthly,  this  argument  utterly  fails.  The  analogy  is  not 
sustained.  The  high  priest  was  not  an  order  distinct  from 
the  priests,  but  was  a  single  individual  and  himself  a  priest ; 
while  the  Levites  were  not  in  sacred  orders  at  all,  no  more 
than  our  church  sextons  now  are.  The  scriptures  speak  of 
the  whole  priesthood,  high  priest  and  all,  as  one  order.4 
Aaron,  therefore,  and  Eleazer,  who  succeeded  him,  are  never 
styled,  in  the  books  of  Moses,  any  thing  but  priests.  Neither 
was  the  title  of  high  priest  given  exclusively  to  one  person, 
but  also  to  the  chiefs  of  the  twenty-four  courses  of  priests.5 
The  high  priest  was  admitted  to  his  office  without  any  ordina- 
tion by  which  a  new  order  might  be  conferred.  The  high 
priest  did  not  ordain  the  inferior  priests,  nor  were  these  made 
to  depend  for  orders  upon  him.  The  high  priest  did  not 
confirm  the  people.  In  case  of  the  pollution  of  the  high 
priest,  a  common  priest  officiated  in  his  stead.0  Neither  was 
the  supreme  and  exclusive  right  of  government  and  jurisdic- 
tion committed  to  his  hands.  The  high  priesthood,  therefore, 
instead  of  being  a  representation  of  the  prelatic  order,  was, 
as  if  by  design,  so  constituted  as  to  overthrow  the  essential 
powers  and  prerogatives  claimed  by  this  order ;  while,  on  the 
other  hand,  this  order  of  prelates  has  no  manner  of  resem- 
blance to  the  high  priesthood  in  those  things,  by  which  it  was 
cardinally  distinguished.7  Besides,  Aaron  and  his  sons  were 
the  princes  of  their  tribe,  so  that  their  eminence   arose,  not 

1)  See  Mendham's  Venal  Indul-  Parker,  in  ibid.  p.  193,  or  in  his  Acct 
gences   and    Pardons   of  the    Ch.   of  of  the  Govt,  of  the  Chr.  Ch.  §  14. 
Rome,  p.  10.     See  also  Milton's  Rea-  3)  Neander's   Hist,   of   the    Chr. 
son  of  Ch.  Govt.  B.  i.  ch.  iii.  Wks.  i.  Rel.  vol.  i.  p.  197. 

p.  90,&c.  4)  Numb.  IS:  1.     Heb.  7  :  11,12. 

2)  See  Campbell's  Lect.  on  Eccl.  5)   Godwyn's  Moses  and  Aaron, 
Hist.  L.  x.  parti.  Gibbon's  Deck  and     B.  i.  c.  5,  and  Mark  14:  1. 

Fall,  vol.  i.  ch.  xv.     See  how  it  is  em-  6)  Ibid. 

ployed  by   Whitgift,  Def.  p.  220,  in  7)  Dr.  Mason's  Wks.  vol.  iii.  p. 

Jameson's   Cyp.   Isot.  p.  191,  and  by    80.    Milton's  Reason  of  Ch.  Govt.  B. 

i.  ch.  iv. 


CHAP.  XIII.]  WAS    NOT    PRELATICAL.  281 

from  their  office,  but  was  brought  into  their  office.  And  hence, 
the  priests  were  not  chosen  as  are  modern  prelates,  from 
among  the  whole  number  of  the  Levites,  but  inherited  their 
dignity,  and  were,  by  birth,  priests.  So  that,  unless  we  will 
allow  prelacy  to  run  in  the  blood,  and  to  proceed  by  hered- 
itary succession,  it  can  find  no  countenance  in  the  Jewish 
priesthood. 1 

There  is  another  line  of  argument,  by  which  the  entire 
failure  of  the  asserted  analogy  between  the  Aaronic  hierarchy 
and  the  prelatic  hierarchy,  especially  as  it  is  developed  in  the 
papal  domination,  is  demonstrated.  The  Aaronic  hierarchy 
rested  on  the  broadest  basis  of  scriptural  authority ;  upon 
direct  proof  of  its  divine  institution  ;  upon  explicit  and  formal 
affirmation,  that  the  Aaronic  authority  descended  to  his 
successors  in  the  same  office ;  and  upon  undeniable  evidence 
that  this  bequeathed  authority  was,  in  fact,  transmitted  to  the 
successors  of  Aaron.  Now,  as  the  consequences  involved  in 
the  prelatic  theory  are,  to  say  the  least,  as  important  as  those 
depending  upon  the  Aaronic  supremacy,  we  must  look  for 
equally  clear  proof  of  its  divine  institution.  But  this  sove- 
reignty, immeasurably  more  vast  in  its  consequences,  its 
geographical  extent,  and  its  duration,  is  entirely  destitute  of 
any  such  documentary  evidence,  and  built  upon  mere  conjec- 
ture ;  so  that  while  the  Aaronic  hierarchy,  as  has  been  said, 
was  a  pyramid  resting  on  its  base,  the  prelatic  is  a  pyramid 
trembling  on  its  apex.  Again,  the  Aaronic  hierarchy  was 
supported  by  a  continuous  attestation,  by  means  of  a 
prophetic  and  miraculous  economy,  running  on  abreast  of 
its  course,  for  many  centuries ;  but  the  prelatic  hierarchy, 
without  pretending  to  the  former  at  all,  boasts  of  the  latter 
only  to  its  shame; 'its  miracles  being  impudent  and  impious 
frauds,  as  no  one  who  examines  them  can  doubt.  Again, 
the  Aaronic  hierarchy  maintained  its  integrity  and  original 
purity,  in  doctrine  and  in  polity,  amid  the  defections  of  princes 
and  of  the  people  for  ages ;  while  the  other  has  been  found 
patronizing  polytheism,  (that  is,  saint  worship,)  and  idolatry, 
in  their  most  debasing  forms.  And,  finally,  while  the  Aaronic 
hierarchy  is  sustained  by  innumerable  predictions,  the  pre- 
latic is  not  only  not  thus  supported,  but  is,  on  the  contrary, 
denounced  by  them,  with  an  irrefragable  precision  and  copi- 
ousness of  description. 

1)  Milton's  Reason  of  Ch.  Govt,  cient  Christianity,  vol.  ii.  part  viii.  pp. 
Wks.  vol.  i.  p.  92.  403  -422,  from  which  we  have  deriv- 

2)  See   this   argument  fully  and  ed  it. 
ably  presented,  by  Taylor,  in  his  An- 

36 


282  THE    JEWISH    HIERARCHY  [BOOK  I, 

Fifthly,  we  remark,  that,  even  were  the  analogy  between 
these  two  orders  as  striking  as  it  is  deficient,  there  would  still 
be  wanting  any  authority  for  deducing  from  the  one  the 
divine  warrant  for  the  other.  '  How,  then,1  the  ripe  age  of  the 
gospel  should  be  put  to  school  again,  and  learn  to  govern 
herself  from  the  infancy  of  the  law,  the  stronger  to  imitate  the 
weaker,  the  freeman  to  follow  the  captive,  the  learned  to  be 
lessoned  by  the  rude,  will  be  a  hard  undertaking,  to  evince 
from  any  of  those  principles,  which  either  art  or  inspiration 
hath  written.'  For  such  an  inference  there  is  wanting  any 
authority  in  the  New  Testament,  which,  in  no  part  of  it,  makes 
a  comparison  ;  which,  if  the  prelatic  theory  is  true,  we  cannot 
imagine  would  have  been  overlooked.  On  the  contrary,  it 
teaches  us  that  there  is  no  such  analogy  whatever;  that  this 
whole  system  of  Jewish  polity  was  now  to  be  exchanged  for 
another ;  and  that,  consequently,  as  the  apostle  Paul  argues, 
'  the  priesthood  being  changed,  there  is  made,  of  necessity, 
a  change  also  of  the  law.'  (Heb.  8:  13.)  Any  parallel, 
which  ingenuity  might  draw  between  the  Jewish  and  prelatic 
order,  is  still  further  destroyed,  by  the  establishment  of  that 
true  priesthood,  which  was  contemplated  and  prefigured  by 
this  Jewish  polity.  We  are  taught  that  the  Jewish  hierarchy, 
and  their  offerings,  services,  and  ceremonial,  were  all  typical 
of  Jesus  Christ,  in  his  sacrifice  and  mediation ;  and  that  the 
high  priesthood,  in  particular,  was  an  eminent  type  and 
emblematic  representation  of  Him  who  is  expressly  denom- 
inated 'the  High  Priest  of  our  profession.'  (Heb.  3:  1.) 
Christ,  in  his  work,  sacrifice,  and  death,  is  the  '  end  of  the 
law  for  righteousness' — its  sum,  substance,  and  complete 
antitype ;  the  temple  representing  the  universal  church,  and 
the  high  priest  the  universal  head.2  The  term  priest  is, 
therefore,  never  given  in  the  New  Testament  to  the  ministers 
of  the  gospel.  It  is  carefully  withheld  from  them.  Nor  can 
it  be  given  to  them  without  the  implication  of  the  most 
serious  and  fundamental  errors.  To  prelatists  and  Romanists, 
therefore,  who  would  draw  an  analogy  between  the  Jewish 
and  the  christian  church,  we  present  the  inspired  argument  of 
the  epistle  to  the  Hebrews.  Here  the  apostle,  so  far  from 
pointing  out  any  such  analogy  in  the  priesthood,  the  temple, 
or  the  continual  sacrifice,  shows,  on  the  contrary,  that  there  is 
a  striking  and  designed  contrast,  and  that,  while  the  former 
are  done  away,  the  institutions  of  Christ  alone  remain.3 

1)  Milton's  Wks.  vol.  i.  p.  90.  3)  See  Lond.  Chr.  Obs.  Sep.  1842, 

2)  Ibid,  vol.  i.  p.  102.  pp.  552,  558. 


CHAP.  XIII.]  WAS    NOT    PRELATICAL  283 

It  is  thus  this  matter  presents  itself  to  the  minds  of  intel- 
ligent and  converted  Jews.  Neander  every  where  insists  on 
this  view  of  the  christian  dispensation  and  polity.1  Mr. 
Herschel  also  presents  the  same  views,  in  his  very  interesting 
letter  to  Mr.  Sibthorp.2  He  shows  how,  by  education,  he  was 
predisposed  so  these  hierarchical  views,  and  that  when  first 
impressed  on  the  subject  of  Christianity  he  was  among  Roman 
catholics,  and  received  their  instructions.3  And  yet,  what  is 
his  testimony  ?  '  You  state,'  says  he,4  '  that  the  constitution 
of  the  ancient  Jewish  church  led  you  to  look  for  a  similar 
constitution  in  the  church  of  Christ.  Strong  as  my  predilec- 
tions in  favor  of  that  church  may  naturally  be  supposed  to 
have  been,  I  was  led,  by  the  perusal  of  the  New  Testament, 
to  a  different  conclusion.  I  find  the  two  dispensations  spoken 
of  much  more  in  the  way  of  contrast  than  of  resemblance. 
When  a  parallel  is  drawn  between  them,  it  seems  invariably 
to  follow  this  rule;  that  what  the  Jewish  church  was 
outwardly,  the  christian  church  was  to  be  spiritually ;  those 
spiritual  blessings,  that  were  shadowed  forth  to  the  Jews  by 
types  and  ceremonies,  were  to  be  possessed  by  the  christian 
church,  as  blessed  realities.'  '  I  should  greatly  exceed  the 
limits  of  a  letter  such  as  this,  if  I  pursued  this  subject  in  the 
way  it  might  be  carried  out.  Suffice  it  again  to  repeat,  that 
the  Jewish  and  christian  dispensations  are  either  directly 
contrasted,  or,  if  compared,  it  is  by  showing  that  the  types  of 
the  former  have  some  corresponding  spiritual  reality  in  the 
latter.  You  state  very  strongly  the  impression  made  on  your 
mind,  by  the  correspondence  you  discovered  between  the 
pope  and  the  Jewish  high  priest.'  '  Now  I  must  candidly 
confess  my  surprise,  to  find  in  an  educated  man,  like  you,  a 
confusion  of  type  and  antitype,  that,  in  an  unlettered  man, 
would  have  been  considered  an  ignorant  blunder.  If  the 
pope  be  the  antitype  of  the  Jewish  high  priest,  then  you  ought 
to  have  had  bullocks  and  goats  slain  at  Rome,  as  the  anti- 
types of  the  bullocks  and  goats  sacrificed  at  Jerusalem.'  '  A 
favorite  quotation  of  the  upholders  of  apostolic  succession  is, 
the  assertion,  made  through  Paul,  when  speaking  of  the  high 
priest :  '  no  man  taketh  this  honor  unto  himself,  but  he  that 
is  called  of  God,  as  was  Aaron.'  But  where  is  there  any 
warrant  for  drawing  a  parallel  between  the  Jewish  priesthood, 
and  the  pastors  and  teachers  of  the  christian  church  ?     We 

1 )  See  Hist,  of  the  Plant,  of  the     come   a    Catholic  and  not  a  Roman 
Chr.  Ch.  passim,  and  Hist,  of  the  Chr.     Catholic.    Lond.lS42. 

Rel.  and  Ch.  3)  Pp.  7,  12. 

2)  Reasons  why  I,  a  Jew,  have  be-  4)  Pp.  6,  9,  10,  19,  20,  24,  25. 


284  THE    JEWISH    HIERARCHY.  [BOOK  I. 

have  the  authority  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  for  saying,  that  the 
high  priest  was  the  type  of  Christ,  and  the  other  priests  the 
types  of  believers.  We  are  '  an  holy  priesthood,  to  offer  up 
spiritual  sacrifices.'  If  we  insist  on  finding  out  an  analogy 
to  christian  teachers,  we  may  discover  some  in  the  Levites, 
who  taught  Israel,  '  and  had  the  book  of  the  law  of  the  Lord 
with  them,  and  went  about,  throughout  all  the  cities  of  Judah, 
and  taught  the  people.'  But  the  Levites  were  not  priests ; 
they  -were  not  of  the  family  of  Aaron ;  they  were  only 
appointed  to  minister  unto  the  priests,  and  do  the  service  of 
the  tabernacle.  And  it  would  be  rather  a  hazardous  step,  in 
the  advocates  of  apostolic  succession,  to  bring  forward  the 
Levites  as  types  of  their  modern  priests.  '  Thou  shalt  bring 
the  Levites  before  the  tabernacle  of  the  congregation  ;  and 
thou  shalt  gather  the  whole  assembly  of  the  children  of  Israel 
together ;  and  thou  shalt  bring  the  Levites  before  the  Lord ; 

AND  THE   CHILDREN  OF   ISRAEL   SHALL     PUT    THEIR  HANDS   UPON 

the  Levites.'  '  What  would  Rome  and  Oxford  say  to  this 
imposition  of  hands  —  this  mode  of  ordination  ?' 

Sixthly — But,  after  all,  it  may  be  shown,  that  our  zeal  against 
the  admission  of  this  argument,  arises  from  an  earnest  con- 
tention for  the  truth  of  God,  and  not  from  any  fear  of  its  ap- 
plication to  the  question  before  us.  For,  it  is  most  clear,  that 
the  only  true  and  proper  analogy  is  found  in  the  order  and 
doctrine  of  presbyterianism,  and  not  in  that  of  either  the  Rom- 
ish or  the  Anglican  prelacy.  As  we  have  already  seen,  Christ 
Jesus,  as  the  Head  over  all  things  to  his  body,  the  church,  is 
the  true  and  only  antitype  of  the  high  priesthood,  as  being '  the 
apostle  and  high  priest  of  our,'  that  is,  the  christian,  'profess- 
ion.' He,  and  He  alone,  as  the  ever-living  and  ever-present 
head,  governor,  and  guide  of  the  church,  is  still,  and  must 
ever  remain,  the  only  high  priest,  under  the  gospel  dispensa- 
tion, and  embody  in  himself  all  the  powers,  prerogatives,  and 
functions,  of  this  supreme  and  highest  order  in  the  church  of 
God.  His  supereminent  dignity  and  divine  superintendence 
we  acknowledge  ;  and  it  is  on  behalf  of  this  royalty  and  king- 
ly crown,  of  our  one  glorious  and  only  head,  our  banners  have 
been  borne  aloft,  even  when  around  them  there  have  fallen,  in 
bloody  massacre,  thousands  of  their  brave  defenders.  This, 
then,  is  our  first  order,  as  it  was  represented  and  held  forth  in 
the  high  priesthood,  and  as  that  priesthood  is  expressly  inter- 
preted in  the  sacred  oracles.  To  the  second  class  of  priests,  as 
the  general  order  or  ministry  of  the  sanctuary,  our  presbyters, 
who  are  also  the  general  order  or  ministry  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment church,  will  most  literally  correspond.     Thus  far  all  is 


CHAP.  XIII.]  WAS    NOT    PBELATICAL.  285 

plain.  Nor  arc  we  here  deserted.  For,  as  Mr.  Jones  teaches 
us,1  Christ  appointed  the  seventy,  because  the  number  seventy 
agrees  to  that  of  the  ciders  who  were  appointed  to  assist  Moses 
in  his  ministry.  The  same  thing  is  asserted  by  Saravia.2 
But  who  were  those  ciders,  who  were  associated  with  Moses, 
in  the  government  of  the  ancient  church  ?  They  were  Jay 
officers,  as  Saravia  admits.3  They  assisted  only  in  govern- 
ment, as  representatives  of  the  people,  being  chosen  from  each 
tribe,  and  not  from  the  priestly  succession,  and  they  were  en- 
tirely distinct  from  the  other  orders  named,  the  high  priest, 
the  priests,  and  the  Levites.  The  consequence,  therefore,  is, 
that  if,  as  prelatists  teach,  '  God  has  so  ordained  that  the  chris- 
tian church,  under  the  gospel,  should  not  depart  from  the  model 
of  the  church  under  the  law,'  there  must  be  now  an  order  of 
teaching  ministers,  correspondent  to  the  ancient  priesthood, 
Jesus  Christ  himself  being  the  great  high  priest ;  an  order  of 
spiritual  governors  as  representatives  of  the  people,  parallel 
to  the  ancient  elders ;  and  an  order  of  deacons  resembling 
the  ancient  Levites;  which  is  the  identical  arrangement 
adopted  by  the  presbyterian  church  and  rejected  by  the  prelacy. 

But,  in  both  the  Romish  and  English  prelacy,  Christ  is  de- 
throned from  his  supremacy  and  headship.  He  is  completely 
stripped  of  his  high  priesthood  and  royalty,  and  made  to  bow 
the  knee  in  servile  homage,  in  the  one  case  to  the  pope,  the 
apostle  and  high  priest  of  the  Romish,  and  in  the  other  case 
to  the  king  or  queen,  the  apostle  and  high  priest  of  the  Eng- 
lish hierarchy.  In  neither  is  there  any  proper  or  allowable 
parallel  to  the  high  priesthood  of  old ;  while  in  both  the  order 
of  prelates  are  left  without  even  the  imaginary  assistance  to 
be  derived  from  some  visionary  resemblance  to  the  vanished 
hierarchy  of  a  system,  which  has  waxed  old  and  been  taken 
away.  Their  supreme  head  alone  corresponds  to  the  Jewish 
high  priest ;  their  priests  to  the  Jewish  priests;  and  their  dea- 
cons to  the  Levites  ;  while  the  poor  outcast  and  famished  or- 
der of  prelates  is  banished  from  the  church  of  God,  or  made 
to  eke  out  its  beggarly  subsistence  upon  air-built  phantoms 
and  unsubstantial  dreams. 

Seventhly,  and  finally,  we  may  remark,  that  this  argumenl 
has  been  abandoned  by  many  of  the  ablest  prelatists,  both 
Romish  and  Anglican.       *  The    Old   Testament,'  says  Sut- 

1)  Of  Nayland.   Wks.   vol.  iv.  p.  3)  '  In  the  Council  of  the  Priests 
356.  of    the    Synagogue,    I   find,    indeed, 

2)  Saravia  on  the  Priesthood,  pp.  elders  who"  were  not  priests.'     Ibid.  p. 
59  and  352.  124. 


286  THE    HEAVENLY    HIERARCHY  [BOOK   I. 

livius,1  '  had  one  temple,  many  sacrifices,  orders  of  priests  and 
Levites,  sacred  rites,  and  laws,  which  things  belong  not  at  all 
to  the  New  Testament.'  He  is  supported  by  bishop  Burnet,2 
Stillingfleet,3  Whitaker,4  Bilson,5  and  others.0  The  argument 
for  the  prelatical  hierarchy,  founded  upon  its  analogy  to  the 
Jewish,  is  therefore  to  be  rejected  as  absurd ;  as  proving  too 
much,  and  therefore  proving  nothing  ;  as  leading  to  great  and 
serious  evils  ;  as  being  without  any  foundation  in  the  facts  of 
the  case ;  as  being  unsupported  by  any  divine  authority ;  as 
being  suicidal  and  confirmatory  of  presbyterianism  ;  and  as 
being,  therefore,  abandoned  by  prelatists  themselves. 

§  2.     The  argument  for  prelacy,  founded  upon  the  heavenly 
hierarchy,  examined  and  disproved. 

But  our  prelatic  friends,  dissatisfied  with  the  antiquity  and 
glory  to  be  derived  from  the  venerable  bench  of  the  Jewish 
priesthood,  or  even  the  more  primitive  prelacy  of  Adam  and 
his  family,  (which  we  have  ourselves  heard  claimed  in  all  sin- 
cerity of  argument)  —  have  now,  it  would  seem,  by  the  heav- 
enly researches  of  some  Herschel  discoverer,  found  their  true 
original  in  the  orders  established  among  the  hierarchies  above. 
It  has  now  been  brought  to  light,  by  the  far-penetrating  gaze 
of  a  recent  ecclesiastical  astronomer,  that  among  the  bright 
intelligences,  who  fill  the  courts  of  the  church  triumphant,  a 
temple  not  made  with  hands,  there  are  three  orders  of  arch- 
angels, angels,  and  seraphim ;  and  that,  '  when  God  came  to 
introduce  his  system  of  religion  and  government  upon  earth, 
we  find  his  arrangements  below  analogous  to  those  above.' 
As  thus,  as  one  star  differeth  from  another  in  glory,  so  do  pre- 
lates, priests,  and  diocesans  differ  from  each  other,  though  all 
are  glorious.7 

It  is  certainly  not  in  our  power,  from  an  examination  of  the 
'  original  documents  '  upon  which  this  new  revelation  rests, 
or  from  an  actual  survey  of  the  heavenly  world,  to  give  to  it 
a  positive  denial.  It  labors,  however,  under  the  very  great 
presumptive  contradiction  of  scripture,  which  designates  the 

1)  De  Pontif.  lib.  i.  cap.  8 ;    and  6)   On  this  whole  argument,  see 
de  Pres.  cap.  4,  5,  6,  8,  14.  as  above,  and    Powell  on  the  Apost. 

2)  Confer,  p.  194.  Succ.  second  ed. pp.  49,  50,  66,77,302  ; 

3)  Iren,  part  ii.  ch.  iii.  Boyse's  Anct  Episc.  pp.295,  296  ;  see 

4)  De  Pontif.  Rom.  Quest,  i.  c.  2.  Elliott  on  Romanism,  vol.  i.  p.  466. 

5)  Perpetual    Govt,  of    Christ's  7)  Boyd's  Sermons  on  the  Church, 
Church,  ch.  ii.  p.  12.  See  in  Jameson's  p.  38. 

Sum.  pp.  36,37,  and   Cyp.  Isot.  224, 
281. 


CHAP.  XIII.]  IS    NOT    PRELATICAL.  287 

angelic  hosts  by  at  least  eleven  or  twelve  different  titles,1  and 
which,  for  aught  these  gentlemen  have  told  us,  may  rep- 
resent as  many  orders,  instead  of  three.  But  what  is  more 
than  this,  the  scriptures  nowhere  speak  of  an  order  of  arch- 
angels at  all,  which  may,  therefore,  the  more  fairly  repre- 
sent the  order  of  prelates,  since  both  are  of  human  origin  and 
device.  But,  what  is  more,  in  the  only  passages  where  there 
is  a  reference  to  the  order  of  the  heavenly  sanctuary,  we 
are  actually  informed  that  the  order  of  presbyters  occu- 
pied the  first  rank,  and  stood  nearest  to  the  throne  of  the 
divine  majesty.  (See  Rev.  4:4;  elder  is  the  same  as  presby- 
ter. Rev.  5:6;  and  7:11;  and  7  :  13 ;  and  14  : 3.)  But, 
still  further,  and  what  must  be  most  mortifying  to  those  who 
tell  us,  that '  the  great  characteristic  of  their  branch  of  the  church 
of  Christ  is  a  reverence  for  antiquity  ;  '2  this  theory  is  entirely 
unsupported  by  that  ultimate  standard  of  all  verity,  the  uni- 
versal consent  of  all  the  fathers.  Clemens  Alexandrinus,  who 
probably  gave  the  first  hint  which  led  the  way  to  the  present 
discovery,  was  unfortunately,  as  we  shall  show,  a  presbyte- 
rian  ;  and  in  the  very  passage  in  question  only  makes  men- 
tion of  two  orders,  saying,  that  these  persons,  '  being  taken  up 
into  the  clouds,  shall  first  be  made  deacons,  and  then  shall  be 
taken  into  the  presbytery,  according  to  the  progress  of  glory  ?z 
When  we  come  to  the  other  fathers,  we  find  no  agreement 
among  them,  as  to  the  order  of  the  celestial  hierarchy.  Ori- 
gen  and  others  were  of  opinion,  that  there  were  many  orders 
of  them  not  mentioned  by  the  apostles.  Others  reckon  up 
nine  orders  of  angels.  The  author  under  the  name  of  Diony- 
sius,  the  Areopagile,  makes  three  grand  or  archiepiscopal  or- 
ders, and  three  subordinate  orders  under  each.  Some  of  the 
rabbins  again  make  four  orders,  and  others  ten  ;  while  the 
Jesuit  Celert,  and  many  others,  have  settled  an  entire  ceremo- 
nial, and  rules  for  precedence  among  the  angels.  But,  alas 
for  it!  neither  in  the  Jesuits,  the  rabbins,  the  fathers,  or  the 
Scriptures,  is  there  any  foundation  for  the  angelic  descent  of 
this  prelatic  doctrine  of  three  orders  of  the  christian  ministry. 

§  3.     The  argument  for  prelacy,  founded  upon  the  polity  of 
the  Jewish  synagogue,  examined  and  disproved, 

But,  when  driven  from  the  sanctuary,  prelatists  take  refuge 
in  the  synagogue.     Thus  bishop  Burnet,  in  his  conferences, 

1 )  See  Eph.  1  :  21  ;  1  Pet.  3  :  22  ;  Catholic  Church,  p.  7,  beins;  Tract  No. 
Col.  1:16;  lSam.4:4;  Is.6:2,  6;  153,  of  the  Am.  Prot.  E.  Tract  Socie- 
Gen.  12  :  17  ;  Job,  1:8;  Rev.  22  :  16  ;     ty. 

Rev.  12  :  7.  3)  Stromat.  lib.  vi.p.  fiG7 ;  in  Cor- 

2)  See   Ancient  Things   of   the    bet  on  the  Church,  p.  114. 


288  THE    POLITY    OF    THE    SYNAGOGUE  [BOOK  I. 

endeavors,  by  many  satisfactory  reasons,  to  show,  that  the 
apostles  adopted  that  form  of  ecclesiastical  polity,  which 
they  found  existing  in  the  Jewish  synagogue,  '  those  things 
only  excepted,  wherein  the  christian  religion  required  a 
change  to  be  made  ; '  and  then  argues,  that  as  this  form  was 
prelatical,  and  included  the  three  orders  of  bishops,  presbyters, 
and  deacons,  that,  therefore,  the  original  form  of  the  christian 
church  must  likewise  have  been  prelatical. x  Now  this  argu- 
ment is,  to  our  minds,  perfectly  conclusive,  either  for  or 
against  prelacy,  accordingly  as  the  facts  in  the  case  oppose 
or  support  the  middle  proposition,  that  is,  the  assumed  pre- 
latical form  of  the  synagogue  polity.  And  as  we  believe  an 
investigation  of  this  matter  will  strongly  confirm  our  position, 
and  the  conclusions  we  have  drawn  from  scripture,  we  shall 
more  fully  examine  into  the  facts  in  the  case. 

It  is  the  opinion  of  those  most  profoundly  versed  in  Hebrew 
antiquities,  that  the  christian  church  adopted,  with  slight 
modifications,  the  discipline  of  the  synagogue.2  That  form 
of  government  extended,  as  is  believed,  back  to  the  time  of 
Moses,  and  certainly  to  a  very  remote  antiquity.3  There  is 
every  reason  to  believe,  that  the  ecclesiastical  system  of  syn- 
agogues originated  in  a  divine  institution,  as  it  was  certainly 
perpetuated  with  the  divine  approbation.  Synagogues  are 
called  '  God's  synagogues,'  in  Ps,  74 :  8.  In  the  synod  of 
Jerusalem,  James  said,  'Moses  of  old  time  hath  in  every  city 
them  that  preach  him,  being  read  in  the  synagogues  every 
sabbath  day.'  Acts,  15 :  21. 4  Moses  had  required,  that  the 
seventh  day  should  be  '  the  sabbath  of  rest,  and  holy  convo- 
cation.' Lev.  23 :  3.  '  The  reason  of  erecting  synagogues,' 
says  Stillingfleet,  '  was  grounded  on  this  command.'5  For 
as  there  was  only  one  temple,  to  which  the  people  were  to 
repair  only  at  the  great  solemnities,  it  was  impossible  that 
they  could  obey  this  positive  command  without  assembling 
every  sabbath  in  some  such  form  as  the  synagogue.  '  What 
could  they  do,'  asks  Lightfoot,  '  without  synagogues,  but 
lose  the  law,  sabbath,  religion,  and  the  knowledge  of  God 
and  themselves,  and  all.'6      We  therefore  find  the  people,  at 

1)  Vind.  of  the  Ch.  of  Scotl.  Conf.  authorities.  Riddle's  Christ.  Antiq. 
4,  pp.  1G1  -  1G3.  p.  139. 

2)  Grot,  in  Acts,  11:  30.  Seld.  3)  Seld.  ibid,  lib.ii.c.  5,  §  l,p.l40. 
de  Synedr.  lib.  i.  c.  8,  p.  121.  Seq.  4)  See  these  passages  fully  vindi- 
Lightf.  Hor.  Hebr.  c.  4,  p.  133.  Stil-  cated,  and  their  divine  origin  proved, 
lingf.  Irenic.  p.  239.  Nolan's  Cath.  in  Plea  for  Presbytery.  Letter  iii.  §  iii. 
Char,  of  Chr.  p.  169.     Paget's  Def.  of  p.  143,  2d  ed.  Belfast :  1841. 

Presb.  Ch.  Govt,  part  ii.  ch.  iii.  p.  42  -  5)  Irenicum,  ch.  vi. 

61,  where  he  adduces  very  numerous  6)  Wks.  vol.  i.  p.  609. 


CHAP.  XIII.]  WAS    PRESBYTERIAN.  289 

an  early  period,  assembling  together  on  the  Sabbath  day,  to 
receive  instruction  from  their  prophets,  (2  Kings,  4:  23,)  that 
is,  in  synagogues.  Our  blessed  Saviour,  also,  constantly  joined 
in  this  form  of  worship,  and  gave  to  it  the  seal  of  his  divine 
approbation,  by  consecrating  two  of  its  ordinances  as  chris- 
tian sacraments.1 

"We  may  well,  therefore,  imagine,  that  to  it  the  apostles 
would  look,  as  their  model  in  all  their  institutions,  and  in  this 
expectation  we  are  confirmed  by  a  reference  to  the  facts  in 
the  case.  According  to  this  discipline,  there  were  in  our 
Saviour's  time,  in  all  the  cities  and  villages,  presbyteries, 
consisting  of  such  a  number  of  members  as  was  proportion- 
ate to  the  population.2  The  smallest  of  these  consistories 
was  composed  of  three  presbyters,3  who  possessed  the  right 
of  admitting  others  into  their  order,4  by  the  imposition  of 
hands,  and  who  were  thus  constituted  presbyters,  and  received 
authority  to  teach,  bind,  and  absolve. 5  It  is  believed,  that 
the  apostle  Paul  was  in  this  way  ordained  a  scribe  or  presby- 
ter, and  that  this  accounts  for  his  entering  at  once  upon  the 
work  of  preaching,  until,  as  a  model  for  others,  he  was  for- 
mally ordained  at  Antioch.6  In  every  synagogue  there  were 
a  bishop,  presbyters,  and  deacons.  The  bishop  was  called  by 
the  several  names  of  bishop,  pastor,  presbyter,  and  angel  of 
the  church.  He  presided  in  the  assembly,  directed  the  read- 
ing of  the  law,  expounded  it,  offered  up  prayers,  and  gener- 
ally conducted  the  public  worship.  The  presbyters  consti- 
tuted, together  with  the  bishop,  a  council  or  senate,  who 
conducted  all  the  affairs  of  the  synagogue.  Their  common  title 
was  that  of  presbyter,  the  others  being  given  according  to 
the  duty  assigned.  The  deacons  again  were  appointed  for  the 
purpose  of  ministering  to  the  poor,  and  serving  tables.7 

Now,  while  the  sacred  records  inform  us  of  the  constant 

1)  Stillingf.  ibid,  p.  240.  Lightf.  of  the  First  Plant,  of  Christ,  vol.  i.  p. 
ibid,  p.  US.  177.     Burnet's  Obs.  on  the  1st  and  2d 

2)  Seld  de  Syn.  lib.  ii.  c.4,  §  2,  p.  Canon.  Lond.  1724,  pp.  2  and  83. 
144.     Stillingf.  ibid,  p.  244.  Lightfoot's  Wks.  vol.  i.  p.  308  ;  vol.  ii. 

3)  Seld.  ibid,  §  2,  144,  $  3, 148.  pp.  133,  755.     Kuinoel,  Com.  on  Acts, 

4)  Seld.  ibid,  §  4,  182,  $  5, 183.  20  :  28.    Jenning's  Jewish  Antiq.  vol. 

5)  Seld.  ibid,  §  2,  144,  §  7,  195.  ii.  pp.  54, 55.     Whateley's  Kingdom  of 

6)  Wilson  on  the  Ch.  p.  279,  and  Christ,  pp.  63,  78.  Eng.  ed  Nolan's 
Lect.  Cath.  Char,  of  Christ,  p.  239.     Pfaff 

7)  I  might  spread  out  quotations  de  Obi.  Euchar.  §  24,  p.  256.  Sara  via 
in  proof  of  these  important  positions,  on  the  Priesthood,  p.  124.  Vitring.de 
but  it  will  be  sufficient  to  refer  to  Syn.  Vit.  lib.  ii.  c.  11.  Reland.  Antiq. 
them,  as  many  of  them  are  given  at  Ebr.  110.  Riddle's  Christ.  Antiq.  p. 
length  by  Dr.  Miller  on  the  Christian  160.  Bp.  White's  Lect.  on  the  Catech. 
Ministry.     Philad.  1840,  pp.   83  -  90.  Phil.  1813,  p.  462. 

We  refer,  therefore,  to  Neander's  Hist. 

37 


290  THE    POLITY    OF    THE    SYNAGOGUE  [BOOK  I. 

and  solemn  sanction  given  to  this  polity  by  our  blessed 
Saviour,  —  and  of  the  regular  attendance  upon  its  worship 
of  the  early  christian  converts  —  nowhere  do  they  announce 
any  abrogation  of  the  system,  or  any  change  in  its  discipline. 
On  the  contrary,  as  has  been  seen,  the  christian  churches  first 
formed,  are  represented  as  placed  under  the  government  of  pres- 
byteries, x  to  which  our  reformers  have  even  applied  the  term 
synagogues.2  The  terms  presbyter  and  bishop  are,  accord- 
ing to  the  usage  of  the  synagogue,  used  interchangeably,3 
and  in  like  manner,  only  two  distinct  classes  of  officers  are 
enumerated  by  the  apostles,  even  when  the  occasion  would 
have  led  to  the  mention  of  any  others  that  were  instituted.4 
These  presbyters  are  also  described  as  '  ordaining  presbyters 
in  every  church  or  city,5  by  the  laying  on  of  the  hands  of  the 
presbytery.' 6 

Among  the  Jews,  wherever  there  were  an  hundred  and 
twenty  of  them  together,  they  could  erect  a  synagogue  ;  and, 
in  like  manner,  the  number  of  the  first  christian  church  was  an 
hundred  and  twenty,  (Acts,  1 :  15.)  And  thus  do  we  find 
churches  erected  in  the  smallest  villages,  as  at  Cenchrea ;  and 
in  houses,  with  their  bishops  or  presbyters,  and  their  deacons, 
even  to  a  late  period.  There  was  thus  a  bishop  at  Bethany 
and  elsewhere.7  In  short,  to  use  the  words  of  archbishop 
Whateley,  '  all  the  circumstances  which  have  been  noticed 
as  naturally  pertaining  to  every  community,  are  to  be  found 
in  that  religious  community  in  which  the  disciples  had  been 
brought  up  ;  the  Jewish  church,  or,  as  it  is  called  in  the  Old 
Testament,  the  congregation  or  ecclesia,  of  which  each  syna- 
gogue was  a  branch.  It  had  regular  officers ;  the  elders  or 
presbyters,  the  rulers  of  synagogues ;  ministers  or  deacons, 
&c.  —  it  had  bye-laws;  being  not  only  under  Levilical  law, 
but  also  having  authority,  within  certain  limits,  of  making 
regulations  and  enforcing  them  by  penalties,  (among  others, 
that  which  we  find  alluded  to  in  the  New  Testament,  of  ex- 
communicating or  casting  out  of  the  synagogue,)  and  it  had 
power  to  admit  proselytes.'8  'It  appears  highly  probable,' 
adds  this  writer,  '  I  might  say  morally  certain,  that  wherever 
a  Jewish  synagogue  existed,  that  was  brought  —  the  whole  or 
chief  part  of  it — to  embrace  the  gospel,  the  apostles  did  not 

1)  Acts,  21:  IS;  11:  30;  14:  23.  6)  1  Tim.  4:  14;  Acts,  13:  1-3; 

2)  See  Voetius's  Political  Eccles.    2  Tim.  1 :  6;  1  Tim.  4:  14. 

torn.  iv.  p.  164.     'De    Synedriis   seu  7)  See  Bishop  Burnet's   Obs.  on 

consistoribus  seu  presbyteris.'  the  first  Canon,  pp.  31,  32. 

3)  Acts,  20:  17,  28;  Titus,  1:  5, 7.  8)  Kingdom  of  Christ,  Essay  ii. 

4)  1  Tim.  3  :  2,  8.  $4,  P-  63,  Eng.  ed. 

5)  Acts,  14 :  23 ;  Titus,  1  :  5. 


CHAP.    XIII.]  WAS    PRESBYTERIAN.  291 

there  so  much  form  a  christian  church,  as  make  an  existing 
congregation  christian,  by  introducing  the  christian  sacraments 
and  worship,  and  establishing  whatever  regulations  were  re- 
quisite for  the  newly  adopted  faith,  leaving  the  machinery  of 
government  unchanged  ;  the  rulers  of  synagogues,  elders,  and 
other  officers,  whether  spiritual  or  ecclesiastical,  or  both,  being 
already  provided  in  the  existing  institutions.  And  it  is  likely, 
that  several  of  the  earliest  christian  churches  did  originate  in 
this  way.'1  This  will  be  made  still  more  apparent  by  attending 
to  the  perfect  identity  in  the  mode  of  conducting  the  public 
worship  of  the  church,  by  reading  the  scriptures,  expounding 
some  portion  of  it,  the  offering  of  public  prayers,  the  bene- 
diction, and  the  amen  ;  and  the  order  of  worship  in  the  syn- 
agogue. In  fact,  Justin  Martyr  and  Tertullian,  in  detailing 
the  order  of  the  primitive  church,  might  be  supposed  to 
delineate  that  of  a  synagogue,  only  substituting  christian  for 
Jewish  doctrines  and  ordinances.2  The  same  view  is  taken 
by  Milman,  in  his  recent  history  of  Christianity,3  who  also 
adds,  that  'episcopal  authority  never  took  root  in  the  syna- 
gogue;'4 and  by  Neander,5  who  shows,  that  the  term  syna- 
gogue was  designedly  used  by  the  apostle  James,  and 
appropriated  by  the  christian  churches  formed  by  Jewish 
converts.6 

To  this  wonderful  parallel  between  scripture  facts,  and  the 
known  order  of  the  synagogue  polity,  the  testimony  of  the 
earliest  antiquity  will  be  found  to  agree.  As  the  fragments 
of  some  remnant  of  ancient  sculpture  are  found  to  fit  into 
one  another,  so  are  the  Jewish  synagogue  service,  and  that  of 
the  apostolical  fathers,  found  to  be  concurrent  and  harmo- 
nious. Of  course,  we  exclude  from  this  comparison  the 
writers  of  a  later  age,  when  changes  had  been  perfected, 
corruptions  matured,  and  when,  for  their  substantiation,  ear- 
lier writings  had  been  grossly  fabricated,  and  notoriously  fal- 
sified, by  hierarchical  interpolations.  And  here,  let  an  episco- 
palian, to  whose  researches  we  are  indebted,  institute  the 
comparison.  '  On  looking  into  this  comparison,7  we  find 
Ignatius  not  only  recognises  the  existence  of  a  presbytery, 
but  under  a  term  analogous  to  that  of  the  sanhedrim  ; 8  and 
represents  a  congregation  wherein  such  presbyters  presided, 


1)  Ibid,  §  9,  pp.  78,  79.  5)  Hist,  of  the  Plant,  of  Christ. 

2)  See  this  analogy  presented  by  by  the  Ap.  vol.  i.  ch.  ii.  pp. 34-47. 
Stillingfleet,  Iren.  part  ii.  ch.  vi.  pp.  6)  Ibid,  vol.  xi.  p.  18. 

262,  263.  7)  Nolan's  Cath.  Char,  of  Christ. 

3)  Vol.  ii.  p.  65,  B.  ii.  ch.  iv.  pp.  173,  175,  178. 

4)  Id.     Note.  8)  Ignat.  ad  Philad.  c.  4,  7,  8,  ad 

Smyrna,  c.  11. 


292  THE  POLITY  OF  THE  SYNAGOGUE       [BOOK  I. 

as  properly  constituting  a  church.1  He  represents  the  body 
to  which  that  term  belonged,  and  not  the  bishop  indepen- 
dently of  them,  as  ordaining  a  minister  for  a  particular  mis- 
sion ;~  and  directs,  in  a  letter  to  Poly  carp,  that  a  presbytery 
should  be  summoned  for  a  similar  purpose.3  He  does  not, 
indeed,  state  the  number  of  persons  by  whom  orders  were 
administered,  but,  in  mentioning  the  presbyters  by  name,  he 
merely  notices  three ; 4  to  one  of  whom  he  gives  the  title  of 
bishop,  or  superintendent,  conformably  to  the  discipline  ob- 
served in  the  synagogue.5  Whatever  defect  may  be  sup- 
posed to  exist  on  this  point,  in  his  evidence,  is  supplied  by 
the  apostolical  canons,6  the  first  of  which  prescribes,  that 
the  number  of  those  who  ordained  to  the  episcopate  should 
be  three,  or  two  at  the  least.'  Again ;  '  The  Jewish  church, 
previously  to  the  apostles,  thus  agrees  in  its  testimony  with 
that  of  the  christian  church,  subsequently  to  their  times ;  their 
concurring  evidence  placing  beyond  all  doubt,  that  the  eccle- 
siastical discipline,  in  the  whole  of  the  time,  continued  unva- 
ried. In  this  single  consideration,  an  adequate  cause  is 
assigned  for  the  silence  of  the  inspired  writers  on  this  subject ; 
which  was  of  too  paramount  importance  to  be  neglected, 
were  the  supposition  of  those  well  founded,  who  maintain, 
that  it  was  new  modelled  by  the  apostles.  The  casual  refer- 
ence to  the  subject  is  precisely  that  into  which  they  would  be 
naturally  led,  had  it  undergone  no  material  alteration.  The 
single  fact  of  its  having  thus  continued  unchanged,  was  all 
that  remained  for  them  to  impart,  and  had  they  formally 
avowed  it,  they  would  have  rather  brought  discredit  than 
confirmation  to  their  testimony,  as  undertaking  to  disclose 
what  was  already  notorious.' 

The  parallel  between  the  form  and  order  of  the  Jewish 
synagogue  and  the  primitive  churches,  founded  and  organ- 
ized by  the  apostles,  and  also  the  presbyterian  churches  at 
this  day,  is,  therefore,  complete  and  undeniable.  And  hence, 
we  conclude,  that  this  argument,  from  the  Jewish  synagogue, 
not  only  does  not  favor  prelacy,  but  absolutely  overthrows  it 
and  establishes  presbytery.  This  we  will  make  manifest,  in 
conclusion,  by  presenting  an  extract  from  the  treatise  on  the 
ceremonies  and  customs  of  the  Jews,  drawn  from  the  works 
of  Leo  of  Modena  and  Buxtorf, 7  which  constitutes  the  first 
volume  of  that  celebrated  work,  '  The  Ceremonies  and  Reli- 

1)  Id.  ad.  Tral.  c.  3.  4)  Id.  ad  Magn.  c.  3. 

2)  Ignat.   ad   Smyrn.  c.   11,    ad  5)  Seld.  it.  lib.  xi.  c.  5,  §  3,  p.  148. 
Philad.  c.  10.  6)   Can.  Apost.  §  1. 

3)  Id.  ad  Polyc.  c.  7.  7)  See  Pref.  p.  1. 


CHAP.  XIII.]  WAS    PRESBYTERIAN.  293 

gious  Customs  of  the  various  Nations  of  the  known  World.' 
commonly  ascribed  to  Picart,  the  engraver  of  its  beautiful 
designs.  The  author  is  a  Roman  Catholic.  And  yet,  he 
says,1  as  there  was  in  every  synagogue  a  principal  or  super- 
intendent appointed  to  preside  over  the  other  elders  ;  so  in 
the  christian  assemblies  there  was  likewise  a  superior,  whom 
some  of  the  fathers  of  the  church  have  likewise  nominated 
the  president,  though,  for  the  most  part,  he  is  distinguished 
by  the  title  of  elder  or  bishop,  in  the  books  of  the  New  Tes- 
tament. Such  as  were  of  the  first  degree  in  the  synagogues, 
were  commonly  called  Zekenim,  elders,  in  imitation  of  the 
seventy  elders,  whom  Moses  had  appointed  to  be  the  judges 
of  the  sanhedrim.  Even  he  who  presided  over  the  rest,  as- 
sumed the  name  of  elder,  being  only,  as  it  were,  their  dean 
or  superior.  In  the  first  assemblies  of  the  christians,  such  as 
were  of  the  first  degree  assumed,  likewise,  the  name  of  pres- 
byteri,  elders,  or  priests.  The  principal  or  bishop,  who  was 
the  superior  of  those  elders,  took  also  the  title  of  an  elder ;  and 
for  this  reason,  the  name  of  bishop  is  sometimes  confounded 
with  the  name  of  priest  or  elder,  in  the  New  Testament. 
The  council  of  the  first  christian  assemblies  was,  for  no  other 
reason,  called  presbylerium,  or  a  council  of  elders.  The  bishops 
presided  in  it,  as  the  principal  and  first  elder,  sitting  in  the 
midst  of  the  others,  in  the  manner  before  mentioned.  The 
priests  or  elders,  who  sat  on  each  hand  of  him,  had  each  their 
respective  seat  as  judges,  and  on  that  account,  are  called 
assessores  episcoporum,  by  the  fathers  of  the  church.  Nothing 
of  any  importance  was  put  in  execution  till  it  had  been  first 
controverted  in  this  assembly,  where  the  bishop  made  but 
one  body  with  the  other  elders  or  priests  ;  because  the  author- 
ity, which  is  now  called  episcopal,  was  not  dependent  on  the 
bishop  alone,  but  on  all  the  elders  jointly,  that  were  under 
the  bishop  ;  and  this  practice  was  observed  at  Rome,  like- 
wise, for  several  ages.'  .  .  .  The  name  of  cathedral  church, 
in  all  probability,  is  derived  from  this  ancient  manner  of  sit- 
ting, in  the  primitive  churches,  or  first  assemblies  of  the 
christians.  '  This  conformity  of  discipline,  between  the  church 
and  the  synagogue,  will  be  still  more  conspicuous,  if  we 
reflect  on  the  ancient  customs  of  the  church.  For  example, 
in  former  times,  the  bishops  only  had  the  care  and  management 
of  schools  ;  and  it  is  not  to  be  questioned,  but  that,  as  the 
Jewish  synagogues  were  schools,  in  which  the  law  was  ex- 
pounded, and  that  there  were  schools  erected  near  the  syna- 

1)  Fol.  l,pp.  119,  120. 


294 


THE    SYNAGOGUE    PRESBYTERTAN. 


[book  I. 


gogues ;  so  the  bishop  and  elders,  or  priests,  in  the  same 
manner,  had  the  care  and  direction  of  schools  amongst  chris- 
tians ;  there  having  been  schools  from  the  earliest  ages  of 
Christianity  in  the  city  of  Alexandria.  In  most  cathedrals, 
there  are  still  some  visible  remains  of  this  custom,  where 
there  are  officers  to  which  the  care  of  schools  is  annexed.'  l 


1)  On  this  whole  subject  see  Bur- 
net's Obs.  on  the  2d  Canon,  p.  53,  &c. 
and  on  the  1st  Canon,  p.  31.  Bas- 
nage's  Hist  of  the  Jews,  B.  v.  ch.  iv.  p. 
406,  &c.  Dr.  Miller  on  the  Ministry, 
new  ed.  p.  76,  &c.  Vitringa  de  Syn. 
Vet.  p.  16,  Prol.  c.  3,  pp.  20,  475,  479. 
Jenning's  Jewish  Antiq.  vol.  ii.  p.  47, 
&c.  See  the  subject  largely  handled 
by  Stillingfleet,  in  his  Irenicum,  part  ii. 


ch.  iv.  Thorndike's  Disc,  on  the  Ser- 
vice of  God  in  Religious  Assemblies. 
Confut.  of  I.  S.  Princ.  of  the  Cyp- 
rianic  Age,  Edinb.  1706,  p.  151.  Dr. 
Wilson's  Prim.  Govt,  of  the  Ch.  p. 
324.  Paget's  Def.  of  Presb.  Ch.  Govt, 
part  ii.  p.  45-61.  Lewis's  Origines 
Heb.  of  the  Heb.  Repub.  B.  iii.  c.  21 
and  22,  vol.  i.  Relandi  Antiq.  Sacr. 
Vet.  Hebr.  1717,  c.  10. 


CHAPTER   XIV. 


THE  ARGUMENT  FOR  PRELACY,  DERIVED   FROM  ITS   EARLY 
PREVALENCE    AND   ALLEGED   UNIVERSALITY,    EXAM- 
INED AND  DISPROVED;    AND   ITS   GRADUAL   IN- 
TRODUCTION CLEARLY  ACCOUNTED  FOR. 


§  1.     The  argument  for  prelacy,  from  its  early  introduction, 

examined. 

But  how,  it  is  asked,  was  it  possible,  or  at  all  credible,  that 
the  primitive  church  should  early  depart  from  the  practice  of 
the  apostles,  or  that  this  departure  should  have  become  uni- 
versal ?     This  argument,  which  is  proclaimed  by  Chilling- 
worth,  Leslie,  and  others,  to  be  an  absolute  demonstration  of 
prelacy,  has,  in  our  estimation,  no  force  at  all.     To  us  it  ap- 
pears both  possible  and  credible,  that  such  a  departure  should 
have  taken  place,  and  that  it  did  actually  occur.     To  such  a 
change  there  was  a  strong  tendency,  from  the  adaptation  of 
the  prelatic  system  to  that  pride,  and  love  of  power,  pomp, 
and  circumstance,  which  are  so  congenial  to  the  natural  heart 
of  man,  and  also  from  its  conformity  to  the  existing  forms 
and  usages  of  the  prevailing  religions  of  the  age.     This  ten- 
dency we  find  to  have  been  actually  manifested,  in  reference 
to  every  doctrine  and  ordinance  of  the  gospel.     Not  one  of 
them  remained  in  its  original  simplicity.     Every  one  of  them 
was  subjected  to  the  improvements  !  the  additions  !  and  the 
ornaments  !  by  which  men  hoped  to  give  them  greater  attrac- 
tiveness and  efficiency.     The  original  institutions  of  baptism 
and  the  Lord's  supper,  were  soon  concealed  under  the  cum- 
brous forms  and  ceremonies  with  which  they  were  encrusted, 
while  there  was  a  continual  effort  to  meet  the  prejudices  of 
the  pagan  multitude,  who  had  been  accustomed  to  gorgeous 
rites,  pompous  ceremonies,  and  the  affectation  of  great  and 
momentous  mystery.     In  illustration  of  this  point,  we  might 
easily  adduce  numerous  examples.     But  it  is  unnecessary, 


296  THE    EARLY    INTRODUCTION  [BOOK  I. 

as  the  facts  cannot  be  denied.  It  is  sufficient  to  remark,  that 
this  tendency  was  developed,  even  during  the  lives  of  the 
apostles  themselves,  and  in  the  very  first  churches  they  had 
established.  Even  then  and  there  was  this  departure  from 
apostolic  truth  and  order,  and  the  introduction  of  humanly- 
devised  arrangements,  made  manifest.  '  Ye  observe  days, 
and  months,  and  times,  and  years  ;  I  am  afraid  of  you,'  says 
the  apostle  to  the  churches  of  Galatia,  (Gal.  4:  10,  11.)  To 
correct  such  abuses,  and  the  tendency  to  greater,  were  all  the 
apostolic  epistles  immediately  written.  How  severe  are  the 
reproofs  conveyed  to  all  the  Asiatic  churches,  through  the 
apostle  John,  in  the  book  of  Revelation.  Are  we  not  admon- 
ished, that  even  then  the  mystery  of  iniquity  had  begun  to 
work,  and  that  it  would  continue  to  increase  until  the  anti- 
christian  system  should  be  perfected  ? 

To  our  minds,  therefore,  the  only  wonder  is,  that  any  can, 
for  a  moment,  seriously  question  the  possibility,  or  the  cred- 
ibility, of  such  a  change.  We  should,  a  priori,  in  entering 
upon  the  history  of  the  church,  look  out  for  the  progressive 
inroads  of  such  inventions  and  will-worship  of  man,  and  in 
the  gradual  consummation  of  the  hierarchical  system  we  find 
all  our  anticipations  no  more  than  realized. 

Nor  is  it  any  valid  objection  to  our  conclusion,  that  we 
cannot  point  out  any  specific  time  when  the  alleged  change 
took  place.  No  such  burden  rests  upon  us.  We  challenge 
the  apostolicity  of  the  prelatic  theory,  and  have  shown  that  it 
cannot  be  built  upon  the  foundation  of  apostles  and  prophets. 
It  is  enough  for  us  to  point  out,  in  the  prevailing  system  of 
after  ages,  a  dissimilarity  to  this  primitive  model.  We  have 
nothing  whatever  to  do  with  the  time  or  the  manner  of  the 
change,  or  the  persons  through  whose  instrumentality  such  a 
discordance  arose.  Here,  in  the  word  of  God,  is  confessedly 
the  original  charter  and  constitution  of  the  church,  but  it  con- 
tains nothing  like  the  assumed  polity  of  the  prelatic  hierarchy. 
The  latter  is  different  from  the  former,  and  is  not,  therefore, 
divine,  or  apostolical,  but  human,  and  that,  whether  it  took 
its  rise  in  the  first,  second,  third,  or  any  other  century.  But 
could  such  a  change,  it  is  asked,  in  the  sentiments  and  prac- 
tice of  the  church,  have  been  silently  introduced  ?  To  this 
let  us  reply,  in  the  very  striking  illustration  given  by  Mr. 
Herschel. 1     '  When  the  conversation  has  happened  to  turn 

1)  Reasons  why  I,  a  Jew,  have  against  the  Romanists,  in  reference  to 
become  a  Catholic,  and  not  a  Roman  the  use  of  images.  Vind.  of  the  Ch. 
Catholic,  pp.  27, 28.  See  also  the  same  ofEng.  p.  202.  See  also  a  similar  re- 
argument  by  which  we  overthrow  ply,  as  to  communion  in  one  kind,  in 
this  objection,  urged  by  bishop  Bull  Notes  of  the  Ch.  Exam.  p.  91. 


CHAP.  XIV.]  OF    PRELACY    ACCOUNTED    FOR.  297 

on  the  mode  of  baptism,  I  have  often  been  amused  at  the 
decided  negative  that  has  been  given  to  the  assertion,  that 
immersion  is  the  prescribed  form  in  the  church  of  England. 
A  reference  to  the  prayer-book  of  course  decided  the  matter. 
1  And  then,  naming  it  after  them,  (if  they  shall  certify  him 
that  the  child  may  well  endure  it,)  he  shall  dip  it  in  the  water 
discreetly  and  warily.  But  if  they  certify  that  the  child  is 
weak,  it  shall  suffice  to  pour  water  upon  it.'  Here  is  a  case 
in  which,  in  less  than  two  centuries,  the  exception  has  become 
the  universal  rule.  And  so  natural  is  it  for  men  to  be  im- 
pressed by  what  they  daily  see,  rather  than  by  the  recollec- 
tion of  what  they  once  knew  to  be  true,  that,  while  every 
prayer-book  in  the  kingdom  contains  evidence  to  the  con- 
trary, the  popular  feeling  certainly  is,  that  sprinkling  is  the 
mode  most  approved  by  the  church  of  England.  If  this  be 
the  case  at  a  time  when  printed  evidence  abounds,  how 
easily,  in  a  time  when  books  were  scarce,  and  the  power  of 
reading  them  equally  rare,  might  customs  be  introduced  by 
the  few,  that  the  many  might  come  to  believe,  even  in  the 
next  generation,  had  subsisted  from  time  immemorial. 

And  what  could  be  more  probable  than  such  a  change  as 
prelacy,  in  the  simple  and  apostolic  model  of  the  church  ? 
With  respect  to  the  remark,  that  men  could  hardly  have  been 
so  presumptuous  as  to  alter  the  doctrine,  or  polity,  of  the 
apostles,  we  can  only  say,  with  Dr.  Burton,  that  it  shows  a 
very  slight  acquaintance  with  human  nature.  If  we  shut  our 
eyes  to  our  own  experience,  and  to  history,  we  might  perhaps 
imagine,  that  men  would  not  dare  to  add  to,  or  diminish 
from,  them  ;  but  the  moment  we  allow  the  light  of  either  to  be 
seen,  the  delusion  must  as  quickly  vanish.  Had  the  apostles 
returned  to  earth,  a  very  short  time  after  their  departure,  they 
would  have  found  such  doctrines  and  practices  professed  as 
they  could  hardly  have  recognised  as  their  own.  Let  it  only 
be  remembered,  that  a  hierachical  system  existed  in  every  pa- 
gan temple,  and  that,  in  many  places,  as  in  Rome,  the  gospel 
made  its  way  for  five  and  twenty  years,  with  nothing  but  the 
zeal  of  individuals  to  spread  it,  and  subject  to  all  their  fan- 
cies.1 And  when  to  this  we  add  the  natural  love  of  power 
inherent  in  our  nature,  and  the  many  circumstances  in  the 
condition  of  the  early  christians  which  tended  to  concentrate 
power  in  the  hands  of  their  ministers,  who  were  their  leaders, 
and  their  purse-bearers,  nothing  could  have  been  more  proba- 
ble than  the  gradual  introduction  of  prelacy,  upon  the  ruins 

1)  See  Burton's  Bampton  Lect.  pp.  14, 18,  26,  39. 

38 


29S  THE    EARLY    INTRODUCTION  [BOOK  I. 

of  presbytcrial  equality-  Usurped  power,  too,  swells  like  the 
avalanche,  until  it  becomes  irresistible,  bears  down  all  oppo- 
sition, and  sweeps  before  it  all  that  resists  its  progress.  The 
history  of  those  times  is  also,  in  great  measure,  a  matter  of 
tradition.  Now  what  an  enormous  camera  obscnra  is  tradi- 
tion. How  mightily  do  things  grow  in  the  human  memory, 
aided  by  the  imagination,  and  when  pride,  ambition,  and  all 
that  lies  in  the  human  heart,  is  there  to  encourage  it.  And 
what  could  be  more  easy,  and  natural,  than  the  gradual  trans- 
formation of  the  presidents  of  the  churches,  the  elder  presby- 
ters, or  moderators,  into  ihe  distinct  and  superior  order  of 
prelatic  bishops,  and  to  claim  for  ihe  office  a  divine  institu- 
tion, since  '  it  was  then  usual  to  repute  all  immemorial  cus- 
toms to  be  deduced  from  an  apostolical  tradition.'1 

But  we  must  also  bear  in  mind,  that  such  a  change  in  the 
character  of  the  church,  and  of  its  ministry  and  order,  was 
foretold  by  our  Lord  and  his  apostles,  in  the  gospels,  epistles, 
and  in  the  book  of  Revelation.2  On  this  argument  we  have 
already  dwelt,  and  shall  not  again  enlarge.  But  we  are 
necessarily  led  by  these  predictions,  to  find  in  that  very  ob- 
scurity by  which  the  progress  of  prelacy  is  characterized,  a 
strong  confirmation  of  the  opinion  that  it  constituted,  in  con- 
nection with  the  other  doctrines  associated  with  it,  that  mys- 
terious or  then  concealed  wickedness,  which,  even  in  the 
apostles'  days,  was  already  at  work,  and  which  the  full  com- 
ing of  the  man  of  sin  has  distinctly  revealed.  And  is  not  the 
fact,  that  such  a  change,  in  many  things  connected  with  the 
polity  and  government  of  the  church,  actually  took  place,  ac- 
knowledged by  all  impartial  writers  ?  That  a  gradual  cor- 
ruption of  the  church  was  foretold  in  scripture,  and  actually 
brought  about,  is  plainly  taught  by  the  very  chiefest  of  its 
promoters,  the  lordly  and  aspiring  Cyprian.  In  his  sixty- 
seventh  epistle,3  he  calls  upon  his  brethren  not  to  be  moved 
or  disconcerted,  by  the  errors  of  the  times,  and  the  ambition 
of  some  prelates.  '  These  things,'  says  he,  'it  hath  been  fore- 
told should  happen,  towards  the  end  of  the  world  ;  our  Lord 
and  his  apostles  have  jointly  confirmed  it  to  us,  that,  as  the 
world  wears  away,  and  antichrist  approaches,  every  thing 
which  is  good  should  wear  away  with  ihe  one,  and  every 
thing  which  is  evil  should  advance  with  the  other.'  He  then 
takes  courage  from  ihe  fact  that  there  were  '  a  good  proportion 
of  bishops  left,''  who  had  stood  by  the  truth.     '  Wherefore, 

1)  Barrow    on    the    Creed,  init.     Lect.  on  Apost.  Succ.  Lect.  vii.  p.  1G2, 
Wks.  vol.  v.  pp.  221-223.  &c,  and  Concl.  pp.  554-  55G. 

2)  See    this    already    proved    in  3)  $  4. 


CHAP.  XIV.]  OF    PRELACY    ACCOUNTED    FOR.  299 

dear  brethren,'  he  adds,  '  although  some  of  our  colleagues 
think  fit  to  neglect  the  discipline  of  our  Lord,  .  .  .  yet 
that  ought  not  to  disconcert  our  faith,  seeing  ihe  Holy  Ghost 
hath  pointed  his  threats  at  such.'  Indeed,  it  is  the  main  ob- 
ject of  this  epistle,  to  prove  that  it  is  a  christian  duty  to  throw 
off  all  such  corruptions,  and  the  bishops  who  countenance 
them. 2  Firmilian,  of  Cassarea,  charges  the  churches  of  Rome 
with  many  innovations,  and  tells  them  that  they  vainly  pre- 
tend apostolical  authority  for  them.2  Nor  were  these  corrup- 
tions without  the  church,  but  within  the  bosom  of  the  catholic 
church  itself,  as  Origen  distinctly  affirms.3  Cyprian,  in  deep 
humiliation,  laments  that  the  great  and  general  declension  of 
his  church  had  fully  required  the  sharp  corrections  sent  upon 
it.  He  shows  that  a  spirit  of  intrigue  and  faction  infected 
many  of  the  clergy  themselves,  and  that  the  most  serious 
attacks  had  been  made  upon  the  order  and  discipline  of  the 
church.  And  in  what  strong  terms  do  many  others  of  the 
fathers  describe  ihe  general  corruption  of  the  church.4  '  It  is 
true,'  says  Mr.  Waddington,  '  that  the  first  operations  of  cor- 
ruptions are  slow,  and  generally  imperceptible,  so  that  it  is 
not  easy  to  ascertain  the  precise  moment  of  their  commence- 
ment. But  a  candid  inquirer  cannot  avoid  perceiving,  that 
about  the  end  of  the  second,  and  the  beginning  of  the  third 
century,  some  changes  had  taken  place  in  the  ecclesiastical 
system,  which  indicated  a  departure  from  its  primitive  purity.'5 
This  testimony  of  an  episcopal  historian  might  be  substan- 
tiated by  any  number  of  writers,  were  it  at  all  necessary. 
The  certainty  of  such  a  change  is  unquestionable.  Neither 
can  it  be  denied,  that  it  affected  the  very  subject  matter  of  our 
discussion,  or  lhat  the  undue  exaltation  of  the  ministry  was 
one  of  the  earliest  errors.6  Did  not  great  changes  take  place 
in  the  third  century,  in  reference  to  the  whole  office,  style, 
and  bearing  of  the  bishops  ?  This  change  is  apparent  in  the 
contradictory  spirit  of  Cyprian ;  for  while,  as  Schlegel  says, 
'no  man  can  speak  in  higher  terms  of  the  power  of  the  bish- 
ops, than  the  arrogant  Cyprian  ; '  '  yet,  when  urged  by  neces- 
sity, he  could  give  up  his  pretensions,  and  submit  every  thing 
to  the  judgment  and  authority  of  the  church,'  and  be  most 
1  condescending  towards  presbyters,  deacons,  and  the  com- 

1 )  See  also  the  whole  of  Cypri-  4)  See     Corrybeare's     Bampton 
an's  G3rd  and  74th  epistles.  Lect.  pp.  402,  4f>2. 

2)  Ep.  ad  Cyp.  inter  Cyp.  Ep.  75.  5)   Hist,  of  the  Ch.  pp.  49,  50. 

3)  In  Math.  Comm.  Series,  $  33,  6)  See   Dr.   Hawkins's  Bampton 
35,  pp.  652  -  854.  Lect.  p.  255. 


300  THE    EARLY    INTRODUCTION  [BOOK  I. 

mon  people. i  Do  we  not,  in  this  century,  read  of  a  whole 
host  of  ministerial  orders,  sub-deacons,  acolythi,  readers,  ex- 
orcists, &c,  who  constituted  an  essential  part  of  the  prelatic 
hierarchy  then  fast  attaining  to  maturity  ?  But  whence  came 
these  orders  and  officers  of  the  church,  with  numerous  other 
customs,  then  firmly  rooted  in  the  church  ?  Who  can  tell 
their  generation  ?  Who  can  trace  them  to  their  source,  or 
dare  to  say  that  they  constituted  a  part  of  the  apostolic  plat- 
form ?  And  if  these  could  be  all  imposed  upon  the  church, 
and  become  interwoven  with  her  divine  contexture,  who  will 
affirm  that  the  order  of  the  prelacy  itself  might  not,  in  like 
manner,  be  gradually  introduced  ?  Certain  it  is,  that  Jerome 
was  of  our  opinion.  '  These  things  I  have  written,'  says  that 
father,  'to  show  that,  among  the  ancients,  presbyters  and 
bishops  were  the  same.  But,  by  little  and  little,  that  all  the 
seeds  of  dissension  might  be  plucked  up,  the  whole  care  was 
devolved  on  one.  As,  therefore,  the  presbyters  know  that, 
by  the  custom  of  the  church,  they  are  subject  to  him  who  is 
their  president,  so  let  bishops  know  that  they  are  above  pres- 
byters more  by  the  custom  of  the  church,  than  by  the  true 
dispensation  of  Christ.'2  No  one  can  contrast  the  church  in 
the  third  century,  and  the  church  in  the  first  and  second,  and 
say  they  are  not  different ;  or  the  writings  of  the  one  and  the 
other,  and  not  admit  that  a  change  had  come  over  the  face 
and  order  of  the  church.  Clemens  Romanus  speaks  only  of 
bishops  and  deacons.  Polycarp  knows  only  presbyters  and 
deacons.  Epiphanius  tells  us,  that  at  first  there  were  only 
bishops  and  deacons.  Hilary  assures  us  the  elder  presbyter 
was  made  president,  without  any  new  ordination.  Such, 
also,  was  the  custom  at  Alexandria.  According  to  the  read- 
ing of  the  Medicean  Codex,  Ignatius  informs  us,  that  the 
order  of  episcopacy  was  'a  new  order.'  Medina,  in  the 
Council  of  Trent,  declared  that,  not  only  Jerome,  but  also 

l)  See  Mosheim  and  Milner  cent,  therefore,  in  time,  became  and 
iii.  Punchard's  Hist,  of  Congreg.  pp.  were  called  the  territories,  parish- 
42, 43.  That  prelates  were  the  growth  es,  or  dioceses  of  such  or  such  church- 
of  time  and  custom,  appears  further  es.'  Thorndike  on  the  Prim.  Govt,  of 
from  the  fact  stated  by  Tertullian,  the  Ch.  p.  16.  Such  is  the  argument 
Lib.  de  Prescript.  Adv.  Hasr.  c.  20.  of  an  advocate  of  the  hierarchy,  and  it 
Ac  pro  inde  ecclesias  apud  unam-  is  a  demonstration  that  no  such  char- 
quamque  civitatem  condiderunt ;  acter  as  a  modern  prelate,  to  whose 
that  at  first  the  faith  was  planted  in  very  existence  a  diocese  is  essential, 
cities.  '  And  common  sense  and  the  could  possibly  exist  until,  in  the  pro- 
least  knowledge  of  times  will  serve  cess  of  time,  such  dioceses  had  been 
to  show,  that  from  thence  it  was  gradually  formed, 
propagated  through  the  countries  that  2)  Comment,  in  Titus, 
lay  to  (or  near)  those  cities  which, 


CHAP.  XIV.]     OF  PRELACY  ACCOUNTED  FOR.  301 

Ambrose,  Augustine,  Chrysostom,  Theodoret,  Primasius,  and 
Sedulius,  all  concurred  with  Aerius  in  rejecting  prelacy,  from 
any  claim  to  divine  right.1  That  a  change  had  gradually 
been  introduced  by  the  custom  of  the  church,  is,  therefore, 
demonstrable.  '  It  is,  however,  amusing,'  says  Dr.  Nolan, 
himself  an  eminent  episcopalian,2  '  to  behold  with  what  man- 
agement an  absfract  question  on  the  divine  right  of  episco- 
pacy is  settled  by  such  reasoners,  while  the  matter  of  fact  in- 
vestigation, as  to  the  growth  of  episcopal  usurpation,  is  sed- 
ulously kept  out  of  sight.  But  it  is  infinitely  more  amusing 
to  behold  with  what  skill  and  good  fortune,  in  laboring  to 
illustrate  the  one  point,  they  succeed  in  establishing  the  other. 
It  is  impossible,  in  fact,  to  rise  from  a  review  of  the  author- 
ities which  they  accumulate  with  much  dulness  and  dili- 
gence, without  obtaining  a  distinct  view  of  the  progress  of 
that  spiritual  tyranny,  which,  in  the  progress  of  time,  was 
obtained  over  the  clergy  and  laity.  From  scripture  to  the 
genuine  Ignatius ;  from  the  genuine  Ignatius  to  Cyprian  ; 
from  Cyprian  to  the  spurious  Ignatius,  the  climax  rises  as 
the  tradition  advances.  The  stream,  as  it  proceeds,  acquires 
depth  and  breadth,  while  it  continues  sluggish  and  muddy. 
The  person  who  is  so  blinded  by  interest  or  prejudice,  as 
to  contend,  that  its  tenor  remains  unchanged ;  that  the  episco- 
pate, in  every  age,  did  not  advance  in  authority  and  ambition  ; 
must  be  prepared  boldly  to  maintain,  that  the  difference  be- 
tween the  primitive  ministry  and  the  present  hierarchy  is  so 
slight  as  not  to  be  discerned.  His  efforts,  in  the  episcopal 
cause,  must  be  employed  to  no  purpose,  and  not  a  step  will 
be  gained,  in  repelling  the  present  charge,  until  he  has  proved, 
not  merely  that  the  three  orders  of  bishop,  priest,  and  deacon, 
but  of  archbishop,  archpresbyter,  and  archdeacon,  of  dean, 
cathedral,  and  rural,  are  of  apostolical  institution.' 

This  objection  is,  therefore,  invalid,  since  it  is  opposed  to 
the  facts  of  the  case.  It  is  also  absurd,  since  it  would  sanc- 
tion as  divine  and  apostolical,  all  errors  and  customs,  the  in- 
troduction of  which  we  cannot  clearly  trace.  The  seeds  of 
such  errors  may  have  been  planted  long  before  the  pestife- 
rous weeds  appeared,  or  attained  maturity,  —  but  are  these 
not,  therefore,  weeds  ?  This  argument  is  nothing  more  nor 
less  than  a  popish  sophism,  invented  to  cover  up  the  enormi- 
ties of  that  corrupt  system.  How  many  doctrines  are  justly 
pronounced  heretical,  and  how  many  customs  justly  deemed 

1)  See  these  authorities  all  quot-  2)   Cath.  Char,  of  Christ. pp.233 

ed  in  Burnet's  Obs.  on  the  1st  Canon.    235. 


302  THE    EARLY    INTRODUCTION  [BOOK  I. 

un scriptural  —  as,  for  instance,  exorcism  and  chrism  —  of 
which  we  cannot  trace  the  first  authors,  on  their  gradual 
progress  towards  a  full  establishment. l  But  are  these,  there- 
fore, to  be  forced  upon  us  as  scriptural  and  necessary  ?  And 
because  we  cannot  gratify  the  curiosity  of  some  men,  by 
pointing  out  what  they  will  admit  to  be  the  gradual  progress 
of  prelacy,  are  we,  therefore,  to  believe  this  to  be  the  system  of 
the  Bible?  No,  the  principle  is  popish,  and  leads  to  the 
wholesale  adoption  of  all  traditions,  around  whose  origin 
there  may  be  gathered  the  mists  of  darkness  and  obscurity. 
This  is  precisely  the  argument  by  which  Dr.  Wiseman  de- 
fends the  Romish  church  against  the  charge  of  heresy,  or 
apostacy;'2  and  it  is  to  be  put  to  silence  just  by  the  use  of 
the  very  weapons  employed  so  vigorously  against  this 
Romish  Goliah,  by  that  champion  of  protestantism,  Mr.  Fa- 
ber,  we  mean  good  common  sense.  On  this  principle  we 
could  easily  demonstrate  that  in  the  rainbow  there  is  no 
such  color  as  orange,  since  there  is  no  given  place  at  which 
it  may,  with  clearness  and  certainty,  be  said  that  this  color 
begins,  and  the  others  cease  to  exist.  On  this  principle  Nero 
never  was  a  cruel  and  wicked  despot,  because  there  was  a 
time  when,  as  is  reported  of  him,  he  exhibited  great  domestic 
piety,  and  an  aversion  to  all  harshness  and  severity,  and 
there  was  no  intervening  period  when  it  could  be  said  he 
then  ceased  to  be  virtuous  and  became  determinately  wicked. 
On  this  principle  it  may  be  declared,  that  the  victim  of  con- 
sumption is  not  mortally  diseased,  because  there  can  be  no 
period  fixed  upon,  when  he  at  once  assumed  the  form  of  such 
serious  and  destructive  disease.  But,  as  in  each  of  these 
cases,  the  conclusions  are  manifest,  and,  therefore,  the  argu- 
ment which  would  disprove  them  unsound,  just  so  is  it  in 
the  case  before  us.  The  question  with  us,  evidently  is  —  not 
when,  and  how,  the  alleged  change  took  place,  but  whether 
the  change  has  taken  place  at  all ;  that  is,  whether  the  polity 
alleged  by  prelatists  to  be  apostolical,  and  given  by  Christ,  is, 
really  and  truly,  that  which  we  find  laid  down  in  the  word  of 
God.  We  affirm  that  it  is  not,  and  we  call  upon  those  who 
declare  that  it  is,  to  demonstrate  their  assertion  from  the  writ- 
ten record,  and  to  reconcile  it  with  its  evident  teaching.  But, 
as  to  the  introduction  of  this  system,  we  believe  it  to  have 
been  gradual,  and  by  slow  and  imperceptible  steps,  so  as,  at 
no  particular  time,  to  cause  immediate  alarm,  and  arouse  to 

1 )  See  Jameson's  Fundamentals  gives  a  whole  list  of  such  points.  See 
of  the  Heir.  p.  217,  and  Chamier's  also  Jameson's  Cyp.  Isot.  p.  340,  &c. 
Panstratia,  torn.  iv.  Lib.  v.  c.  16,  who  2)  Lect.  on  the  Doct.  vol.  i.  pp. 

314-316. 


CHAP.  XIV.]  OF    PRELACY    ACCOUNTED    FOR.  303 

open  and  violent  resistance.  But  that  this  progress  was 
observed,  and  that  alarm  was  actually  taken,  and  protesta- 
tions  entered  against  it,  we  know.  And  if  the  fact  of  such 
alarm,  'as  early  as  the  beginning  of  the  fifth  century,'  to  the 
progress  of  the  Romish  apostacy,  is  deemed  by  Mr.  Faber. 
sufficient,  then  assuredly  the  testimonies  of  Jerome,  and  of 
Aerius,  of  Primasius,  Sedulius,  and  others,  are  more  than 
enough  to  authenticate  the  fact  of  this  prelatical  usurpation. 
We  would  further  remark,  that,  even  could  prelacy  be  tra- 
ced up  to  the  apostolic  age  of  the  church,  it  would  not  there- 
fore be,  necessarily,  an  apostolic  institution.  Even  then,  we 
are  taught,  the  mystery  of  iniquity  was  at  work.  There  were 
many  antichrists  even  in  the  apostles'  times.  False  teachers, 
lying  prophets,  men  who  said  they  were  apostles,  and  were 
not,  errors  in  doctrine,  in  government,  and  in  practice,  then 
abounded.  '  For  many  deceivers,'  says  the  apostle,  '  are  en- 
tered into  the  world,  who  confess  not  that  Jesus  Christ  is 
come  in  the  flesh.  This  is  a  deceiver  and  an  antichrist.' 
2  John,  5:  7.  'For  there  are  many  unruly  and  vain  talkers 
and  deceivers,  specially  they  of  the  circumcision,  whose 
mouths  must  be  stopped,  who  subvert  whole  houses,  teaching 
things  which  they  ought  not,  for  filthv  lucre's  sake.'  Tit.  1: 
10,  11.  There  were  'false  apostles,'  (2  Cor.  11:  13,)  'false 
brethren,'  (Gal.  2:4,)  those  who,  to  gain  their  ends,  would 
even  forge  letters,  in  the  name  of  the  apostles,  (2  Thess.  2:  2,) 
'false  prophets  who  should  bring  in  damnable  heresies,  .  .  . 
and  many  shall  follow  their  pernicious  ways.'  (2  Pet.  2: 
l,^)1  So  extensive  were  these  errors,  that  bishop  Shuttle- 
worth  enumerates  ninety  heresies  as  having  prevailed  from 
the  first  to  the  third  century.2  Against  these  heresies  the 
apostles  strove,  and  wrote,  and  preached,  and  forewarned  the 
present  and  coming  ages  of  ihe  church.  The  age  of  heresy 
began  with  the  age  of  Christianity,  and  will  close  only  with 
its  close.  The  first  age  was  as  defectible  and  fallible  as 
any  other,  and  gave  birth  to  as  many  monstrous  perversions 
of  divine  things.  The  various  existing  sects  and  denomina- 
tions, says  Mr.  Holden,  have  their  counterpart  in  former  ages, 
.  .  .  and  the  principles  may  there  be  discerned,  which  at 
length  attained  their  full  growth  and  maturity.'3  Papias, 
Appollinarius,  Victorinus,  Tertullian,  Irenagus,  Lactantius, 
and  others,  defended  the  heresy  of  the  personal  reign  of 
Christ  on  earth.     Irenaeus  held  that  man  at   the  beginning, 

1)  See    many    similar    passages  2)   On  Tradition,  p.  44,47,  04. 

quoted  in  Goode's  Div.  Rule  of  Faith,  3)  Ibid,  p.  130. 

vol.  i.  pp.  427,  428. 


304  THE    EARLY    INTRODUCTION  [BOOK  I. 

when  created,  was  imperfect.  Clemens  Alexandrinus,  and 
Justin,  held  that  the  angels  fell  in  consequence  of  their 
carnal  lusts  for  women.  Many  of  the  fathers  also  believed 
in  the  propriety  of  giving  the  Lord's  supper  to  infants.1 
What  controversies  were  waged,  in  the  earliest  times, 
about  the  obligation  of  Jewish  ceremonies,  the  sacramental 
cup,  and  whether  the  wine  should  be  used  simply,  or  with 
water,  on  the  time  and  observance  of  Easter,  on  heretical 
baptism,  and  other  matters.2  The  apostle  warns  the  Ephesians 
that  grievous  wolves  would  shortly  enter  among  them.  He 
implies  the  existence,  among  churchmen,  of  covetousness, 
and  ambition  of  power,  of  which  he  gives  an  illustration  in 
Diofrephes.3  Cerinthus  and  Basilides,  the  founders  of  her- 
esy and  schism,  were  actuated  by  the  ambition  to  be  reckoned 
great  apostles,  and  these  lived  in  the  first  century.  Montanus, 
in  the  second  century,  was  actuated  by  a  similar  motive,  as 
well  as  Samosatenus,  in  the  third,  and  Demetrius,  of  Alex- 
andria, and  all  the  other  fomenters  of  heresy  and  strife.4  In 
short,  if  we  consider  the  immoral  and  irreligious  state  of  the 
world  at  that  time ;  that  the  first  christians  were  mostly  from  the 
lower  orders ;  the  reproofs  and  remonsftances  of  the  inspired 
apostles ;  the  fact  that  the  writings  of  Clement,  Ignatius,  Barna- 
bas, and  Hermas,  were  at  first  read  in  the  churches,  as  if  in- 
spired, while  full  of  fabulous  analogies ;  the  fact,  also,  that 
all  the  writings  of  the  sacred  penmen  were  not  then  collected 
together,  and  were  not  universally  known  and  read  ;  we  must 
conclude,  that,  even  in  the  earliest  age,  the  probability  of  cor- 
ruption, both  in  doctrine  and  order,  was  irresistibly  strong.5 
'  While,'  saith  Jerome,  '  the  blood  of  Christ  was  yet  but  re- 
cently shed  in  Judea,  it  was  maintained  that  the  Lord's  body 
was  but  an  appearance ;  the  Galatians,  drawn  away  to  the 
observance  of  the  law,  were  again  begotten  to  spiritual  life 
by  the  apostle ;  the  Corinthians,  disbelieving  the  resurrection 
of  Christ,  were  urged,  by  many  arguments,  to  return  to  the 
true  path.  Then  Simon  Magus,  and  Menander  his  disci- 
ple, asserted  themselves  to  be  powers  of  God.  Then  Basil- 
ides feigned  his  great  god,  Abiaxes,  with  his  three  hundred 
and  sixty-five  forms !  Then  Nicholas,  who  was  one  of  the 
seven  deacons,  promulged  his  impurities.  I  say  nothing 
of  the  heretics  of  Judaism,  ...  I  come  to  those  heretics 
who  mangled  the  gospels ;  a  certain   Saturninus,  and   the 

1)  See  Jewell's  Def.  of  Apol.  part  4)  Euseb.  Eccl.  Hist.  lib.  i.  c.  28, 
iii.  ch.  iii.  §  1.  Jameson's  Cyp.  Isot.  and  lib.  iv.  c.  7,  and  lib.  v.  c.  16,  and 
p.  340.  lib.  vi.  c.  S. 

2)  Jameson,  ibid,  p.  307.  5)  See   Letters  on  the   Fathers, 

3)  Ep.  to  Titus.  Letter  iv.  p.  48,  &c. 


CHAP  XIV.]      OF  PRELACY  ACCOUNTED  FOR.  305 

Ophites,  and  Cainites,  and  Sethoites,  and  Carpocrates,  and 
Cerinlhus,  and  his  successor,  Ebion,  and  other  pests,  most  of 
whom  broke  out  during  the  life  of  the  apostle  PauV  He 
then  goes  on  to  illustrate  his  position  in  the  case  of  the  seven 
churches  of  Asia.1  To  the  same  effect  speak  Origen,  Diony- 
sius,  and  others.2  And  hence,  it  is  by  the  principles  of  the 
apostolic  law,  and  not  merely  by  the  facts  or  customs  of  the 
apostolic  age,  that  the  character  and  claims  of  any  doctrine, 
custom,  or  order,  must  be  ultimately  judged.  There  is  no 
consistent  medium  between  claiming  infallibility  for  the 
church  in  every  age,  and  inspiration  for  all  her  teaching  and 
her  acts,  and  attributing  it  exclusively  to  Christ  and  to  his 
sacred  written  word. 

The  silence  of  the  fathers  is  objected  to  us.  But  besides 
what  has  been  said  on  that  point,  we  would  further  remark, 
that,  on  our  view  of  the  subject,  a  comparative  silence  of  the 
earliest  fathers  was  to  have  been  anticipated.  Presbytery 
being  true,  and  being  the  established  order  in  the  churches, 
no  more  than  incidental  allusions  could  have  been  looked  for. 
Until  the  aggressions  of  the  prelatic  temper  had  become 
visibly  apparent,  they  could  not  be  condemned  ;  and  if,  when 
thus  visible,  their  reception  had  been  previously  made  sure, 
by  imperceptible  advances,  we  might  be  prepared  to  find 
them  silently  received,  and  then  approved.  Thus  did  the 
errors  of  popery  steal  forth,  like  the  leaves  of  spring,  by  a  sure 
but  invisible  progress.  But  we  may  retort  still  more  point- 
edly upon  our  opponents.  We  are  certainly  placed  by  them 
in  a  most  paradoxical  predicament,  since  they  tell  us  that, 
although  it  is  unquestionably  true  that  the  name  bishop  is, 
throughout  the  scriptures,  formally  given  as  one  of  the 
designations  of  presbyters ;  that  yet  afterwards  it  was  trans- 
ferred to  the  order  now  exclusively  known  by  that  title.  But 
when  we  demand  evidence  of  this  change  —  a  very  important 
one,  as  we  regard  it  —  by  whom  introduced;  by  what  divine 
authority  sanctioned,  we  receive  no  other  answer  than  the 
report  given  by  Theodoret,  in  the  fifth  century ! !  That  the 
change  has  been  made,  is  certain  ;  but  when,  and  by  whom, 
who  can  assuredly  tell?  And  yet,  in  prelatic  argument, 
this  report  of  the  fifth  century  is  an  all-satisfying  demonstra- 
tion. But,  when  we  exhibit  the  platform  of  Christianity,  as 
drawn  up  in  the  word  of  God,  and  show  that  no  such  thing 
as  prelacy  is  to  be  found  therein,  we  are  immediately  gagged 
with    the    allegation    that,    for   many    subsequent   centuries, 

1)  Dial.   Adv.  Lucifer,  §  23,  24,  2)  See    given    in     Goode's   Div. 

torn.  ii.  col.  196-198.  Rule  of  Faith,  vol.  i.  pp.  432-43S. 

39 


306  THE    EARLY    INTRODUCTION  [BOOK  I. 

prelacy,  as  a  system,  did  exist,  and  that  until  we  can  make  it 
demonstrably  evident  when,  where,  and  by  whom  it  was 
actually  introduced,  it  must  be  concluded  to  have  existed 
always  and  everywhere.  But  this  argument  surely  is  as  good 
in  the  one  case  as  in  the  other,  and  will  just  as  forcibly 
substantiate  presbytery  as  prelacy.  For,  as  it  never  can  be 
made  certain  when,  where,  and  by  whom,  the  term  bishop  was 
transferred  to  the  present  order  of  prelates,  and  ceased  to  desig- 
nate the  order  of  presbyters ;  of  course  it  must  be  concluded  that 
no  such  change  was  ever  authoritatively  or  properly  made  ; 
that  the  term,  therefore,  as  used  by  the  primitive  fathers,  means 
what  it  does  confessedly  mean  in  the  word  of  God;  and  that 
it  was  only  after  the  presidents  among  these  coequal  officers 
had  succeeded  in  concentrating  power  in  their  own  hands, 
that  the  exclusive  appropriation  of  the  name  bishop  to  them- 
selves was  formally  established.  This  we  believe  to  be  the 
truth  in  the  case,  and  the  argument  must  be  peculiarly 
grateful  to  every  prelatic  understanding.  And,  if  the  testi- 
mony of  Theodoret  is  insisted  upon,  as  proof  sufficient  for 
the  authorized  transference  of  the  title,  although  only  a  report 
of  a  report;  most  assuredly  the  testimony  of  Jerome,  who 
lived  in  the  fourth  century,  to  the  fact,  which  he  substantiates 
from  holy  writ,  that  'in  the  beginning  the  churches  were  gov- 
erned by  a  common  council  of  presbyters,  a  presbyter  being 
the  same  as  a  bishop,  but  that  afterwards,  by  little  and  little, 
the  whole  care  was  devolved  upon  one;'  this  testimony  will, 
we  say,  most  unquestionably,  suffice  to  establish  the  claims  of 
presbytery  to  be  the  true,  primitive,  and  apostolic  order.  And 
let  prelatists  take  hold  of  whichever  horn  of  this  dilemma  they 
may,  presbytery  must  be  the  gainer,  and  in  neither  case  a 
loser. 

We  have  seen  how,  in  the  beginning,  every  church  had 
its  presbytery,  varying  according  to  its  extent,  over  which 
one  of  the  presbyters  was  chosen,  to  act  as  president  or 
moderator.  This  moderator  became  permanent  and  fixed, 
and  was  chosen  at  first  from  regard  to  age,  but  afterwards  to 
qualifications.  This  was  the  apostolical,  primitive,  and  pres- 
byterian  episcopacy.  This  president  being  then  treasurer, 
and  leader  of  the  society,  and  the  first  object  of  attack  and 
persecution,  soon  monopolized  great  power  and  authority, 
which  were  willingly  allowed  to  one  at  every  moment  liable 
to  death.  He  was  thus  led  to  receive,  par  eminence,  the 
name  and  title  of  bishop,  and  to  assume,  as  his  right,  the 
exclusive  privileges  assigned  to  the  office.  Thus  did  the 
presbyterial  or  republican  episcopacy  pass  into  the  parochial 


CHAP.  XIV.]     OF  PRELACY  ACCOUNTED  FOR.  307 

episcopacy.  This  parochial  episcopacy,  except  in  cities, 
continued  until  the  council  of  Nice.  The  assumption  of 
parochial  authority  by  despotic  councils,  the  claim  of  prelates 
to  the  sole  power  of  ordination,  and  the  exclusion  of  pres- 
byters from  councils,  paved  the  way  for  the  establishment 
of  diocesan  episcopacy.  '  When  the  first  vigor  and  fervor 
of  church  discipline  slackened,  avarice  and  ambition  creeping 
in  apace  into  the  hearts  of  churchmen,  these,  not  contented 
with  their  allowances  out  of  the  churches  of  the  city,  which 
were  too  small  for  their  growing  desires,  got  churches  in  the 
country  annexed  to  them,  and  for  most  part  served  them  by 
substitutes,  except  at  the  return  of  some  solemn  festivities  ; 
and  by  this  means  it  was  that  church  discipline  fell  totally 
into  the  bishops '  hands,  and  the  ancient  model  being  laid 
aside,  new  courts,  which  were  unknown  to  antiquity,  were 
set  up,  &C.1  The  humble  diocesan  episcopacy  which  had 
arisen  in  cities,  from  adherence  to  the  rule  that  there 
should  only  be  one  community,  however  many  churches,  in 
one  place,  was  adopted  by  Constantine,  as  an  engine  of 
power,  and  made  the  basis  of  that  ecclesiastical  hierarchy 
which  has  since  ruled,  oppressed,  corrupted,  and  destroyed 
the  church,  and  overwhelmed  both  her  purity  and  her  liberty 
in  one  common  ruin.2  There  is,  therefore,  an  apostolical,  a 
parochial,  and  a  diocesan  episcopacy ;  or,  as  it  may  be  called, 
a  scriptural,  primitive,  and  patristical  or  ecclesiastical  episco- 
pacy ;  or,  to  use  the  terminology  of  Beza,  a  divine,  a  human, 
and  a  satanic  episcopacy.  We  claim  the  first,  and  are  thus  two 
degrees  nearer  to  antiquity  and  apostolicity,  than  are  prelatists. 

§  2.     The  argument  for  prelacy  derived  from  its  universal 
prevalence. 

The  generality  of  people  like  to  be  in  a  crowd.  Multitudes 
cannot  err.  The  majority  must  be  right.  And  might  makes 
right.  Prelatists,  therefore,  by  dint  of  loud  asseveration,  bold 
assertion,  and  the  reiterated  declaration  of  oft-refuted  mis- 
statements, endeavor  to  make  all,  who  take  opinions  upon 
authority,  believe  that  prelacy,  that  is,  as  they  wish  people  to 
conclude,  the  present  form  of  prelacy,  has  universally  existed 
from  the  apostles'  days  until  the  reformation.  Presbytery,  it 
is  said,  was  then  invented  by  Calvin,  Knox,  and  others,  and 
foisted  into  the  church.     Such  statements  are  common  to  the 

1)  Burnet's  Obs.  on  the  2d  Canon,  Episc.  p.  251 ;  see  also  Riddle's  Christ, 
P-  59-  Antiq.  193,  194,  170,  and  Stillingfleet. 

2)  See  Dr.  Wilson's  Govt,  of  the  Iren.  part  ii.  ch.  6.  $  13. 
Ch.  pp.  108, 134, 2S5,  and  Boyse's  Anct. 


PRELACY  A  NOVELTY.  [BOOK  I. 

most  reputable  prelatical  writers,  of  all  ages  and  countries. 
But  the  whole  argument  is  a  mere  assumption.  It  has  no 
more  foundation  than  the  late  report  of  the  discoveries  of  Her- 
schel  in  the  moon,  and  ought,  like  them,  to  be  universally 
exploded.  Of  its  utter  untruth,  (we  can  say  no  less,)  we 
have  already  had  some  illustration.  Its  more  full  exposure 
we  reserve  for  our  chapter  on  the  antiquity  of  presbytery. 
Meantime,  we  challenge  the  whole  hierarchy  to  produce  one 
diocesan  bishop,  or  diocesan  church,  in  the  first  two  centuries; 
or  to  prove  the  existence  of  any  other  than  a  parochial  episco- 
pacy. It  cannot  be  done,  and,  therefore,  this  whole  outcry  is 
an  imposition  upon  the  credulity  of  those  who  will  not,  or 
cannot,  examine  for  themselves.  And  thus  have  we  estab- 
lished, from  scripture,  the  claims  of  presbyters  to  the  true 
apostolical  or  ministerial  succession,  and  shown  the  utter 
insufficiency  of  all  the  objections  offered  by  prelatists,  to  this 
scriptural  and  primitive  polity. 


BOOK    II. 


THE  CLAIMS  OF  PRESBYTERY  TO  THE  TRUE  APOSTOLICAL  OR 

MINISTERIAL  SUCCESSION,  SUSTAINED  BY  AN  APPEAL  TO 

THE  FATHERS,  THE  SCHOOLMEN,  THE  REFORMERS,  AND 

TO  THE  ROMISH,  ANGLICAN,  AND  OTHER  CHURCHES. 


'  It  were  as  wise  to  employ  cur  waking  hours  in  recovering  the  dreams  of  night,  in  order  thereby  to 
ascertain  the  truth  of  any  point,  as  to  settle  any  doctrinal  point  by  the  fruitless  toil  of  explaining  tho 
day-dreams  of  the  fathers.' 

'Whatsoever  time,  or  the  heedless  hand  of  blind  chance,  hath  drawn  down  from  of  old  to  this 
present,  in  her  huge  drag-net,  whether  rish  or  sea-weed,  shells,  or  shrubs,  unpicked,  unchosen,  thoso 
are  the  fathers.*  Milton. 

•Who  are  the  fathers  ?  They  are  merely  ancient  writers,  who  lived  in  the  earlier  ages  of  the 
church.'  Dr.  Hook's  Novelties  of  Hom.  p.  5. 


CHAPTER   I. 


PRELIMINARY  REMARKS  ON  THE  NATURE,  DESIGN,  AND  VALUE 
OF  THE  TESTIMONY  OF  THE  FATHERS. 


§  1.     Scripture,  and  not  the  fathers,  the   only  authoritative 
standard  of  faith  or  practice. 

With  scripture  the  question  of  church  polity  must  finally 
rest.  The  question  —  and  the  only  question — is,  is  it  a  mat- 
ter of  fact,  as  prelatists  teach,  that  the  prelatic  system  was 
ordained,  by  our  Lord  and  his  apostles,  as  the  only  and  per- 
manent order  of  the  church,  and  was  it,  as  such,  universally 
instituted  in  all  the  churches  established  by  them  ?  What  then 
is  it  to  us,  to  tell  us  that  this  system  was  received  and  acted 
upon  by  the  churches  of  the  third  and  following  centuries,  or 
even  of  the  second  century.  Suppose  it  was,  this  would  only 
prove  that,  at  that  period,  this  system  was  received,  as  having 
been  the  one  established  by  the  apostles.  We  are  still,  there- 
fore, to  be  assured  that  such  was  the  fact,  and  this  we  can 
ascertain  only  from  those  inspired  records  which  Christ  and 
his  apostles  have  given  for  our  instruction,  upon  whom  the 
ends  of  the  world  have  come.  Our  duty  plainly  is,  not  to 
stop  short  at  any  age  before  that  of  the  apostles ;  or  at  any 
writings  but  those  which  were  given  by  inspiration  of  God. 
The  question,  therefore, returns  —  do  these  writings  propound 
this  prelatic  system  ?  For,  to  admit  it,  as  of  divine  origination 
and  authority,  merely  because  the  uninspired  writers  of  a 
subsequent  age  have  said  so,  '  would  be  nothing  more  respect- 
able than  a  gross  act  of  blind  credulity.'1  It  would  be  the 
admission  of  a  doctrine  as  divine  without  proof,  and  upon 
merely  human  and  fallible  authority.2    And  since,  both  ncga- 

1)  Faber  on  Romanism,  B.  ii.  ch.  2)  '  We  are  a  living  church  only 

vii.  p.  505.  as  we  hold  the  foundation.'   Hampden 

on  Tradition,  p.  83. 


312  SCRIPTURE    ALONE    CAN    DECIDE  [BOOK  II. 

tively  and  positively,  the  scriptures  disown  the  system  and 
afford  it  no  substantiation,  it  follows,  as  a  necessary  conclu- 
sion, that  it  never  can  be  established  by  any  possible  amount 
of  subsequent  testimony,  and  that  the  prelatist  believes  in 
his  system,  as  having  been  established  by  Christ  and  his 
apostles,  not  only  without,  but  even  against  evidence. 

But,  it  is  said,  we  must  have  recourse  to  the  fathers,  for 
since  the  meaning  of  scripture  is  ambiguous  and  disputed, 
we  must  seek  their  interpretation  from  succeeding  writers. 
But  are  not  these  fathers  themselves  ambiguous,  and  on  these 
very  points  ?  Are  they  not  equally  and  confidently  claimed 
by  the  opposite  parties  in  this  debate  ?  And  who  then  is  to 
be  their  interpreters,  and  who  the  interpreters  of  their  inter- 
pretation, and  so  on,  ad  infinitum  ?  Or  can  we  for  a  moment 
imagine  that  inspired  men  are  to  be  put  to  school  to  unin- 
spired writers,  and  the  records  which  the  Holy  Ghost  indited, 
submitted  to  the  correction  of  weak,  fallible,  and,  in  many 
cases,  most  ignorant  and  mistaken  persons  ?  Or  are  we  to 
adopt  it  as  a  canon  of  interpretation,  that  whenever  a  question 
is  raised  as  to  the  opinions  of  any  author  or  writings,  and 
especially  if,  claiming  to  be  inspired,  such  authors  and  their 
writings  are  to  be  carefully  excluded  from  examination,  and 
the  opinions  of  others  in  succeeding  ages  to  be  sought  as  the 
infallible  criterion  ?  Such  positions  are  evidently  and  grossly 
absurd,  and  yet  are  they  implied  in  this  prelatical  demand. 
The  only  end  and  design  of  the  whole  scheme,  is,  to  get 
away  from  scripture,  and  from  the  sure  judgment  against  pre- 
lacy which  scripture  contains.  And  thus,  when  these  men 
would  fasten  tradition  upon  the  church  of  England,  as  the 
teacher  of  faith,  they  exclude  the  reformers, — the  only  com- 
petent witnesses,  —  from  bearing  testimony  in  the  case, 
because,  forsooth,  '  their  opinion  is  the  very  subject  keenly 
debated,  and  claimed  by  opposite  schools  of  the  present  day.' l 
Surely  such  men  make  void  the  word  of  God  and  common 
sense,  by  their  vain  and  foolish  traditions. 

Our  inquiry  is  after  a  divine  institution,  and  the  divine 
right  of  prelacy  or  presbytery,  as  the  original  form  of  church 
government.  And  '  all  the  difficulty  is,  howa/ws  divinum  can 
be  proved  when  men  leave  the  scriptures,  which  they  do  in 
effect  when  they  call  in  the  help  of  succeeding  ages  to  make 
the  scriptures  speak  plain  for  them.'2  And  if  the  scripture, 
being  once  ascertained,  became,  in  its  turn,  a  test  for  every 
thing  claiming  to  be  apostolical  tradition,'  3    then  how  can 

1)  See  Oxf.  Tr.  No.  78,  Preface,  2)   Stillingfleet,  Irenec. 

and  Jordan's  Rea.  of  Tradition,  pp.  10,  3)  Keble  on  Tradition,  p.  28. 

11. 


CHAP.  I.]         WHAT    IS    THE    POLITY    OF    THE    CHURCH.  313 

any  patristical  traditions,  as  to  the  point  before  us,  avail  pre- 
latists  when  contrary  to  that  scripture  by  which  they  are  to 
be  tried  ?  All  the  fathers  put  together,  could  not  surely  weigh 
against  direct  and  positive  evidence  from  the  word  of  God,1 
since  it  must  be  conceded,  by  all  who  admit  the  authority  of 
scripture,  that  from  the  decision  of  the  word  of  God  there  can 
be  no  appeal.-  Besides,  an  appeal  in  this  case  from  the  scrip- 
tures to  the  fathers  has  only  widened  our  differences,  and 
made  our  perplexities  more  inextricably  great.  The  works 
on  the  controversies,  originated  by  this  subject,  and  the  inter- 
minable question  about  fathers,  would  constitute  a  volumin- 
ous library.3  All  parties  claim  the  sanction  of  antiquity.  The 
Independent,  the  Presbyterian,  the  Methodist,  the  Prclatist, 
the  Romanist,  the  Greek,  and  all  the  other  varieties  of 
christian  denominations,  are  alike  confident  in  appealing  to 
the  authority  of  the  early  church.  The  fathers,  therefore,  may 
be  just  as  much  abused  as  scripture,  and  give  forth  just  as 
uncertain  and  discordant  sounds.4 

Amid  this  conflict  of  opinion  and  diversity  of  judgment, 
there  is  but  one  guide  and  directory,  to  the  inquirer  who 
seeks  the  true  church,  where  Christ  our  Lord,  as  the  way,  the 
truth,  and  the  life,  may  be  savingly  discovered.  The  word  of 
God,  made  plain  to  the  mind  by  the  Spirit  of  God,  implored 
and  obtained  from  on  high  —  this  alone  can  speak  with 
authority  from  heaven,  and  not  as  the  scribes.  This  is  the 
star  in  the  east,  which  leads  to  that  temple  where  Christ  is  to 
be  found,  and  where  he  may  be  truly  worshipped  by  the  poor 
in  spirit.  And,  as  the  wise  men,  after  they  had  been  long  guid- 
ed on  their  way  most  prosperously,  by  this  heavenly  light, 
turned  aside  to  receive  more  certifying  direction  from  the 
rabbis  in  Jerusalem,  and  were  thereby  only  darkened,  and 
perplexed,  until  they  again  sought  light  from  above;  so  shall 
it  be  with  all  who  turn  away  from  the  sure  word  of  scripture, 
to  the  deliverances  of  fathers,  and  the  decrees  of  councils. 

Even  when  any  usage  or  custom  has  been  traced  back 
fourteen  or  fifteen  hundred  years,  it  is  forgotten  that  there  are 
still  four  centuries  behind;  that  these  also  abounded  with 
serious  errors ;  and  that,  therefore,  even  here,  we  may  be  led 
astray  by  false  and  deluding  lights.5  It  is  confessedly  the 
lot  of  all  institutions,  administered  by  human  agency,  to  de- 

o!  ^-°nen  onTra(,iti°n>  P-129.  3)    See    Nolan's    Cath.  Char,  of 

2)    Wilberforce's  Pract.  View.  In-  Christ,  pp.  276,  398,  393,  395. 

trod.  p.  4,   17th  Eng.  ed.  Lond.  1829.  4)  See    Tracts  of   the   Anglican 

See   also    Milton's    Prelat.    Episcop.  Fathers,  vol.  i.  p.  iv. 

Wks.  vol.  i.  p.  61.  5)  See  Hawkins's  Bampton  Lect. 

p.  248. 
40 


314  SCRIPTURE  ALONE  CAN  PROVE       [BOOK  II. 

teriorate,  by  departing  from  their  original  principles.  This  is 
peculiarly  the  case  with  those  institutions  which  are  of  divine 
appointment;  for  this  reason,  that,  in  consequence  of  their 
simplicity  and  spirituality,  they  are  foreign  to  the  natural  con- 
ceptions of  mankind.1  As  the  very  essence  of  tradition  and 
human  custom,  therefore,  is  change,  we  are  assuredly  more 
certain  to  find  the  truth  in  purity  at  the  fountain,  than  when 
the  stream  has  pursued  a  troubled  course,  through  muddy  and 
polluted  channels,  and  has  been  commingled  with  various 
waters.  Hence  it  becomes  necessary,  from  time  to  time,  to 
return  to  original  principles  and  design;  to  compare  existing 
institutions  with  what  they  profess  to  be,  and  with  their  first 
charter  and  practice;  that  we  may  thus  ascertain  whether,  and 
how  far,  they  have  departed  from  their  original  constitution. 
All  subsequent  forms  and  practices  in  the  church  must  thus 
be  brought  to  the  standard  of  scripture,  and  be  pronounced 
right  or  wrong  as  they  are,  or  are  not,  conformable  to  it.  Our 
final  inquiry,  in  ascertaining  what  are,  or  are  not,  the  divinely 
instituted  offices  in  the  church,  must,  therefore,  be,  what  is 
the  scriptural  meaning  of  the  terms  employed  to  designate 
such  offices ;  and  the  scriptural  description  of  the  offices 
themselves. 

But,  it  is  said,  the  first  fathers,  being  the  immediate  suc- 
cessors of  the  apostles,  have  preserved  to  us  those  views  of 
the  apostles,  which  they  orally  received,  and  those  institutions 
they  found  established  by  apostolic  authority.  In  reply,  we 
say,  that  our  inquiry  simply  is  as  to  the  asserted  fact,  that  such 
doctrines  and  practices  have  been  conveyed  to  us  from  the 
apostles.  It  is  on  this  point  we  are  at  issue  with  prelatists. 
We  reject  nothing  claiming  to  be  apostolic  or  divine,  merely 
because  it  is  unwritten,  but  because  it  has  not  been  proved 
to  have  been  revealed;  and  because,  as  we  believe,  no  single 
article,  not  capable  of  proof  from  scripture,  has  ever  yet.  been 
traced  to  this  supreme  authority.2  The  points  at  issue,  in  the 
present  controversy,  relate  to  the  three  orders  of  the  ministry. 
And  what  is  affirmed  is,  that  there  exists  sufficient  evidence 
to  prove  that  prelacy  was  adopted  by  the  fathers,  as  an  insti- 
tution established  by  the  apostles  themselves.  But  for  this 
assertion  what  is  the  proof  offered  ?  It  is  nothing  more  than 
the  report  of  certain  men,  that  such  and  such  things  were  oral/?/ 
delivered,  and  personally  authorized  by  the  apostles;   that  is 

1)    See    this    fully  admitted,  in  2)  Hawkins's    Bampton   Lect.  p. 

Woodgate's    Bampton    Lect.  pp.  1,  2,     208. 
10,  though  they  are  designed  to  up- 
hold the  opposite  views. 


CHAP.  I.]        WHAT    IS    THE    POLITY    OF    THE    CHURCH.  315 

to  say,  a  report,  delivered  by  men  uninspired,  fallible,  and 
liable  to  error  and  mistake,  that  they  heard  from  others,  that 
they  heard  from  certain  others,  and  so  on,  that  such  and  such 
things  were  spoken,  and  were  established  by  the  apostles. 
The  question  then  is,  can  any  amount  of  such  testimony  be 
considered  as  an  authoritative  record  of  what  was  thus  orally 
delivered?  Even  were  we  assured  that  such  views  and  insti- 
tutions prevailed,  say  in  the  second  century,  could  this  prove 
that  the  report,  founded  upon  other  reports,  that  they  were 
originally  communicated  by  the  apostles,  in  their  oral  teach- 
ing, was  an  accurate  and  faithful  deliverance  of  what  was 
thus  actually  conveyed  ?  We  do  not  say  that  such  a  concur- 
rent testimony,  as  to  any  fact  cognizable  by  the  senses,  would 
be  insufficient  to  establish  its  truth.  Far  from  it.  But  would 
such  agreement,  as  to  any  report  of  what  had  been  orally 
communicated  by  the  apostles,  be  adequate  to  authenticate  it 
as  their  general  views  ?  Now  we  must  believe  that  it  would 
not;  otherwise  all  distinction  between  inspiration  and  mere 
human  report,  is,  at  once,  destroyed,  and  our  faith  made  to 
rest  not  upon  the  word  of  God,  but  upon  the  mere  words  of 
man.  And  they,  surely,  are  entitled  to  be  called  apostolical, 
who  build  their  faith  on  what  are  acknowledged  to  be  the 
genuine  remains  of  the  apostles,  rather  than  they  who  form 
and  fashion  their  opinions  upon  the  reports  of  subsequent 
men,  that  such  and  such  views  were  delivered  orally  by  those 
apostles.  Presbyterians,  in  short,  are  the  trne  apostolicals, 
while  prelatists  are  the  patristicals.  We  build  on  the  divine 
word  of  God,  given  by  inspired  and  infallible  men  ;  they  on 
the  report  of  men,  who  were  neither  inspired  nor  infallible, 
that  certain  views  were  delivered  in  the  very  form  and  man- 
ner declared,  by  these  apostles.  We  do  not  reject  such  views 
because  these  fathers  were  not  honest  and  good  men,  but  be- 
cause the  most  honest  and  upright  men  are  exceedingly  lia- 
ble to  err  in  their  representation  of  the  opinions  and  the  teach- 
ing of  others ;  because,  also,  the  remains  of  these  witnesses, 
containing  these  rumors  of  reports,  are  few  and  insufficient; 
and  because,  even  in  those  few  remains,  these  prelatical  ru- 
mors are  far  from  being  sustained.1 

These  fathers  may  not  have  rightly  received  such  cus- 
toms and  doctrines  as  given  by  the  apostles,  and  may 
have  erred  also  in  interpreting  the  scriptures  so  as  to  favor 
such  opinions.     We  are  not,  therefore,  under  any  obligation 

1)  See  Goode'sDiv.  Rule  of  Faith,  vol.  i.  Introd.  pp.  14-16,  Eng.ed.,  and 
pp.  499,  527. 


316  SCRIPTURE  THE  ONLY  RULE  OF  THE  CHURCH.      [BOOK   II. 

to  believe  any  such  doctrines  to  be  true,  merely  because  they 
were  anciently  received  as  such.1  Surely  the  authority  of 
fathers  and  councils  cannot  be  foisted  upon  us,  until  it  is  first 
proved  that  such  authority  was  delegated  to  them  infallibly,  to 
deliver  to  us  the  oral  teaching  of  the  apostles,  even  as  the  apos- 
tles were  commissioned  to  communicate  the  teaching  of  God. 
'  Herein,'  says  bishop  Sherlock,  'we  do  not  consider  them  as 
a  church,  but  as  credible  witnesses.'  '  For  how  can  the  au- 
thority of  a  company  of  men  who  call  themselves  the  church, 
before  I  knowwhether  there  be  any  church,  move  me  to  believe 
any  thing  which  was  done  sixteen  hundred  years  ago.2  '  For 
certainly  the  church  has  no  charter  but  what  is  in  the  scripture.'3 
For,  '  should  synods,  and  convocations,  and  oecumenical 
councils  determine  that  for  an  article  of  faith,  which  is  not 
plain  and  intelligible  in  scripture,  they  ivere  ridiculous,  indeed, 
and  there  were  an  end  of  their  authority^ 

The  very  question  being,  whether  the  authority  of  these 
fathers  is  what  is  claimed  for  them,  their  own  testimony  can- 
not be  taken  as  sufficient  proof.5  The  validity  of  all  such 
proof,  drawn  from  the  ancient  councils  and  writings  of  the 
fathers,  we  reject,  for  sufficient  reasons.  As  to  councils,  'for 
the  first  three  hundred  years  there  was,'  as  Bellarmine  allows, 
'  no  general  assembly  ;  afterwards,  scarce  one  in  an  hundred 
years.'6  And  when  they  did  take  place,  their  canons  were 
'  episcoporum  decretal  that  is,  the  decrees  of  bishops,  as  Cyp- 
rian testifies,7  'enacted  by  the  sole  authority  of  bishops,'8  the 
presbyters  and  laity  being  gradually  allowed  no  other  privi- 
lege than  that  of  consenting  to  them  when  made.  Such  tes- 
timony, therefore,  the  court  of  reason  and  impartial  honesty 
rules  to  be  improper,  partial,  and  wholly  inadmissible,  seeing 
that  claimants  charged  with  the  dishonest  usurpation  of  an 
authority  never  delegated  to  them,  as  are  these  prelates,  never 
can  be  permitted  to  give  testimony  in  favor  of  themselves. 

§  2.     On  the  delusive  value  attached  to  the    fathers,  based  on 
the  ambiguity  of  the  term  old. 

As  it  regards  the  alleged  testimony  of  the  fathers,  we  must 
remember,  that  there  is  a  great  delusion  in  the  value  attached 

1)  See  Dr.  Ibbot's  Disc,  on  the  5)  See  Jordan's  Rev.  of  Tradition, 
Authority  of  the  Ancients,in  the  Boyle  pp.  51,79,85,  90,  and  Nolan's  Cath. 
Lectures,  vol.  ii.  fol.  p.  832,  &c.  Serm.     Char,  of  Christ,  pp.  61,  64. 

xjj.  6)  De  Rom.  pp.  1  8,  in  Barrow's 

2)  Notes  of  the  Church,  Ex.  and  Wks.  Fol.  vol.  i.  780. 
Refuted,  pp.  6,  45.  7)  Ep.  1,  48  and  55. 

3)  Ibid,  p.  7.  8)  Potter  on  Ch.  Govt.  p.  294,  &c, 

4)  Ibid,  p.  47. 


CHAP.  I.]     THE  FATHERS  NOT  OLD  BUT  YOUNG.         317 

to  their  testimony,  and,  secondly,  a  great  mistake  as  to  its  char- 
acter and  amount.  This  value  is  made  to  rest  on  its  great 
antiquity.  Now  there  is  a  great  fallacy  as  to  the  term  old. 
In  its  strict  and  proper  sense,  this  word  means  the  length  of 
time  any  thing  has  existed,  and  in  this  sense  it  is  at  once  ap- 
parent, that  the  age  of  the  earliest  fathers  was  the  infancy  and 
childhood  of  Christianity,  and  that,  whatever  wisdom  is  to  be 
attached  to  age,  or  to  be  derived  from  experience,  must  be 
looked  for,  not  in  the  earliest  but  in  the  present  age. l  We 
are  the  fathers,  they  were  the  children.  Ours  is  the  ancient, 
theirs  was  the  new-formed  church.  Ours  are  all  the  lights  of 
experience,  with  all  the  records  of  inspiration,  and  all  the  in- 
vestigations and  experiments  of  the  wise  and  the  pious.  The 
early  age,  as  we  have  seen,  like  that  of  childhood,  was  most 
open  to  delusion,  and  least  able  to  resist  or  to  detect  encroach- 
ing abuses.  The  same  multiplied  errors  in  doctrine  and  prac- 
tice, which  existed  in  the  apostolic  age,  continued,  when  there 
were  no  longer  any  inspired  and  infallible  guides,  to  tell  what 
error  was.  Neither  were  the  churches  then  generally  possess- 
ed of  the  scriptures,  nor  of  all  the  Bible,  so  as  in  all  cases, 
at  once,  to  try  the  new-broached  sentiments,  whether  they 
were  of  God.  It  was  a  long  time  before  the  whole  canon  of 
scripture  was  agreed  upon  by  universal  testimony.  Some 
churches  had  one  part,  some  another ;  Rome  herself  had  not 
all.  We,  however,  do  possess  the  written  word,  in  all  its  ful- 
ness, and  are  thus  as  near  the  fountain-head  as  the  first  chris- 
tians ;  possess,  substantially,  all  that  the  apostles  preached ; 
and  have  far  greater  facilities  for  drawing  from  the  fountain 
the  clear  and  unadulterated  water  of  eternal  truth.  The  ear- 
liest was  in  truth  the  most  ignorant  and  the  weakest  age  of 
the  church.  The  state  of  the  world,  generally,  was  then  im- 
moral and  irreligious.  The  great  body  of  the  first  christians 
were  of  the  lowest  orders.  The  first  churches,  as  is  evident 
from  the  reproofs  of  the  inspired  epistles,  were  exposed  to 
the  greatest  disorders,  the  wildest  schemes,  the  most  fatal 
and  licentious  tendencies,  and  the  most  artful  and  hardened 
deceivers.  From  the  death  of  the  apostles  until  the  time  of 
Justin  Martyr,  that  is,  for  eighty  years  after  the  death  of  Peter 
and  Paul,  and  about  fifty  years  after  the  death  of  John,  there 
was  no  writer  of  any  note;  whilst  the  works  of  the  judaizing 
Clement,  the  cabalistic  fancies  of  Barnabas,  and  the  wild  rev- 
eries of  Hermas,  were  publicly  read  in  the  churches.  Neither 
have  we  any  true  record  of  the  earliest  ages,  as  is  univer- 

1)  See  Whateley's  Logic,  Appendix,  Art.  Old,  p.  359,  Eng.  ed. 


318  WE    HAVE    NO    SUFFICIENT    MEANS    TO  [BOOK    II. 

sally  admitted  and  confessed  by  Eusebius  and  Jerome.1 
Those  very  points  on  which  there  was  then  the  most  univer- 
sal consent,  as  for  instance  the  doctrine  of  the  millenium,  the 
practice  of  giving  the  eucharist  to  infants,  and  the  carnal  in- 
tercourse of  the  angels  with  women,  are  now  universally  con- 
demned as  unscriptural  and  unapostolical.2  And  just  as  it  was 
by  their  agreement  as  to  the  canonical  books  of  scripture,  and 
their  acknowledgment  of  them  as  the  rule  of  their  faith  and 
practice,  these  early  churches  were  enabled  to  ascertain  the 
truth  or  falsity  of  any  opinion  ;  so  is  it  by  these  same  scrip- 
tures all  systems  must  now  be  tried,  the  rule  being  necessa- 
rily clearer  and  more  authoritative  than  any  thing  which  ap- 
peals to  it  as  a  ground  of  certainty  and  proof.  Otherwise 
our  faith  would  rest  on  tradition,  and  tradition  —  not  the  Bi- 
ble—  would  become  our  rule  of  faith. 

§  3.     On  the  delusion  as  to  the  character  and  amount  of  the 
testimony  of  the  fathers. 

So  much  as  to  the  value  of  the  patristical  testimony.  But 
we  are  under  no  less  delusion  as  to  its  character  and  amount. 
On  this  subject  we  might  say  much,  but  it  is  unnecessary, 
since  the  treatise  of  Daille,3  and  of  Mr.  Goode,4  are  both  pub- 
lished in  this  country,  and  are  accessible  to  all.  The  tradition 
of  the  fathers,  commonly  called  the  universal  church,  even  if 
harmonious  and  ascertainable,  would  not  be  an  infallible  re- 
porter of  the  oral  tradition  of  the  apostles,  for  the  reasons 
already  assigned.5  There  is  nothing  upon  which  the  faith  of 
all  private  christians  can  less  rely,  than  this  pretended  univer- 
sality, and  that  for  these  reasons  :  1.  Because  it  does  not  ap- 
pear what  is  that  universal  church  whose  faith  is  to  be  the 
rule.  2.  Because  it  is  not  known  what  is  the  faith  of  that 
church.  3.  Because  it  is  not  manifest  whether  the  faith  of 
any  church  assignable  be  true.' 6  But  were  it  otherwise,  and 
were  such  a  consentient  judgment  of  the  fathers  authoritative, 
it  is  not  possible  that  such  an  agreement  can  be  ascertained.7 
Let  it  be  supposed  that  the  famous  canon  of  Vincentius  was 

1)  See  admissions  in   Jameson's  3)  A  Treatise  on  the  Right  Use 
Sum  of  the    Episc.  Controv.   p.  181 ;     of  the  Fathers,  Lond.  1841. 

Euseb.    Eccl.  Hist.;     Pref.  Jerome's  4)   Goode'sDiv.  Rule  of  Faith  and 

Ep.  to  Dexter ;  Petavius,  Rationar.  lib.  Practice,  2  vols.  8vo. 

v.  parti,  c.  3.  5)  See  Goode,  vol. i.  pp.  167,  177, 

2)  See  Goode's  Div.  Rule  of  Faith,  181,  and  Daille,  B.  ii.  c.  1  and  2. 

vol.  i.  p.  500 ;  Letters  on  the  Fathers,  6)  Placette  in  Goode,  vol.  i.  p.  177. 

p  eg  7)  See  Goode,  as  above,  pp.  160- 

185,  and  Daille,  B.  i.e.  9-11. 


CHAP.  I.]      ASCERTAIN  THE  VIEWS  OF  THE  EARLY  CHURCH.       319 

binding,  and  that  that  is  true  which  was  believed  always, 
every  where,  and  by  all;  yet  when  wise  men  consider  this 
way,  with  all  those  cautions  and  limitations  set  down  by  him, 
they  are  apt  to  think  he  hath  put  men  to  a  wild-goose  chase, 
to  find  out  any  thing  according  to  his  rules,  and  that  St.  Au- 
gustine spake  a  great  deal  more  to  the  purpose,  when  he 
spake  concerning  all  the  writers  of  the  church,  '  that  although 
they  had  never  so  much  learning  and  sanctity,  he  did  not 
think  it  true  because  they  thought  so,  but  because  they  per- 
suaded him  to  think  it  true,  either  from  the  authority  of  scrip- 
lure  or  some  probable  reason.'1  In  the  first  two  centuries 
there  were  no  full  or  satisfactory  creeds,  and  certainly  none 
which  contain  any  thing  as  to  the  subject  of  the  present  con- 
troversy. Neither  were  there,  during  that  time,  any  general 
councils.  Neither,  if  there  had  been  such,  could  they,  in  any 
proper  sense,  represent  to  us  the  faith  and  practice  of  the 
church  universally. 

The  records  which  remain  of  these  early  times  will  never, 
therefore,  justify  us  in  deducing  from  them  the  opinions  and 
practice  of  the  churches  universally.2  It  so  happens  that  the 
whole  list  of  the  christian  writers,  for  the  first  two  centuries, 
whose  works  are  still  extant,  is  an  exceedingly  short  one,  com- 
prizing about,  sixteen  writers.  We  cannot  reckon,  therefore, 
upon  one  witness  for  every  million  of  existing  christians. 
These,  also,  and  we  may  add  the  writers  of  the  third  century, 
formed  but  a  very  small  proportion  of  the  writers  of  those 
ages.  The  author  of  the  '  Synopsis  of  Scripture,'  speaks  of 
'  myriads  of  other  books  without  number,  composed  by  the 
fathers,  who,  in  their  time,  were  great,  and  excelling  in  wis- 
dom, and  taught  of  God.'3  But  these  are  all  lost,  or  destroyed. 
It  is,  therefore,  preposterous  to  make  this  small  number  of 
scattered  writers,  the  uncommissioned  and  plenary  represen- 
tatives of  the  universal  church,  for  three  hundred  years,  and 
to  exalt  their  opinions  into  apostolic  teaching.  Besides,  it  is 
manifest  that  in  these  remaining  works,  we  are  permitted  to  see 
antiquity  only  through  that  medium  which  the  ruling  party 
in  the  church,  that  is,  the  clergy  and  the  bishops,  have  allowed 
to  be  preserved.4  Neither  are  we  certain  that  any  one  trea- 
tise, and  especially  on  points  touching  the  ministry,  has  come 
down  to  us  unaltered  and  uninterpolated.5    We  are  indebted, 

1)  Stillingfleefs  Rat.  Grounds  of  3)   Goode,  ibid,  pp.  1S7,  1SS. 
Protest.  Relig.~lC65,  p.  279.      See  this  4)  Ibid,  p.  192. 

rule  well  exposed  in   the  Edinburgh  5)   We  know  the  contrary,  as  it 

Review,  April,  1843,  p.  279,  &c.  regards  Ignatius  ;    see  also  generally, 

2)  Goode,  ibid,p.  187,  &c.  and  Da-  our  position  maintained   by  Prolans 
ille,  B.  i.  ch.  ii.  iii.  Catholic  Char,  of  Christ,  pp.  154, 172  ; 


320  THE    TESTIMONY    OF    THE  [BOOK  II. 

be  it  remembered,  to  the  Romanists,  for  all  the  earlier  editions 
of  the  fathers,  and  while  whole  treatises  have  been  suppress- 
ed, others  have  been  grievously  corrupted,  and  others  forged, 
and  published  in  iheirname  ;a  so  that  one  hundred  and  eighty 
treatises,  professing  to  be  written  by  authors  of  the  first 
six  centuries,  are  now  repudiated,  by  the  most  learned  of  the 
Romanists  themselves,  as  rank  forgeries,  or  not  written  by 
the  authors  whose  names  they  bear.1  There  is  a  mystery  con- 
nected with  this  same  business  of  manufacturing  fathers,  with 
which  the  uninitiated  commonalty  ought  to  be  made  fully 
acquainted.2  It  is  notless  certain  that  corruptions  have  been 
introduced  into  the  genuine  works  of  the  fathers.3  This  cor- 
ruption has  been  shown  to  be  very  extensive,  and,  considering 
the  opportunities  enjoyed,  must  have  been  very  general.4 
Facts,  therefore,  plain  and  undeniable,  show  that  the  records 
which  remain  to  us  are  not  trust-worthy  witnesses  of  the  oral 
apostolical  traditions.  In  this  presumption  we  are  counten- 
anced by  Augustine,  who  questioned  the  genuineness  of  one 
of  the  writings  attributed  to  Cyprian,  and  supposed  that  an- 
other of  his  had  been  suppressed.5  This  danger  was  also 
felt  by  Irenffius,  and  by  Dionysiusof  Corinth,  who  complained 
of  this  misrepresentation,  by  the  corruption  of  his  writings.6 
Nor  can  we  now  be  ever  possibly  certified  as  to  the  genuine- 
ness and  correctness  of  the  patristical  volumes,  the  time  hav- 
ing gone  by  for  establishing  the  proof,  through  the  negligence 
of  the  early  publishers.7 

§  4.     The  testimony  afforded  by  the  fathers  is   discordant, 
and  therefore  inconclusive. 

But,  further,  these  writings  are  discordant.8  Fathers  are 
found  opposed  to  fathers,  councils  to  councils,  creeds  to  creeds, 
and  the  same  fathers  to  themselves.9  This  is  eminently  true 
in  reference  to  this  very  subject  of  prelacy,  since  the  same 
writers  are  made  to  speak  most  clearly,  as  the  respective  par- 
ties suppose,  on  both  sides  of  the  question.  These  fathers, 
in  some  cases,  falsify,  even  when  they  pretend  to  deliver  the 

Milton  shows  at  some  length,  that  the  4)   Goode,  pp.  200-217,  vol.  i.  and 

best  times  were  spreadingly  infected  ;  Daille,  B.  i.  c.  7,  and  B.  ii.  c.  5. 

the  best  men  of  these  times  foully  taint-  5)  Ep.  ad  Vincent,  38,  T.  ii.  Fol. 

ed  ;  and  the  best  writings  of  these  men  55,  in  Hampden,  ibid. 

dangerously  adulterated.  Ref.  in  Eng.  6)  Hampden,  ibid,  pp.  29,  30. 

Wks.  vol.  i.  p.  15.  7)  Ibid,  p.  30. 

1)  Goode,  pp.  ibid,  195,  199,  &c.  8)  Ibid,  vol.  i.  p.  220,  &c. 

2)  Powell  on  Trad.   Supplement,  9)  That  any  thing  may  be  proved 
p.  23.  from  them,  see  Goode's  Rule  of  Faith, 

3)  Goode,  p.  200.  vol.  ii.  p.  123. 


CHAP.  I.]  FATHERS    IS    DISCORDANT.  321 

opinions  of  the  apostles  themselves.     Thus  they  unanimous- 
ly attributed  to  the  apostles  the  millenarian  scheme  of  Christ's 
personal  return  and  reign  upon  the  earth.1     The  eastern  and 
the  western  fathers  most  flatly  contradict  each  other,  as  to  the 
time  of  observing  Easter;    and  yet  both  asserted  that  they 
were  sustained  by  express  apostolic  testimony. a      The  most 
violent  controversies  also  prevailed,  as  to  the  propriety  of  re- 
baptizing  heretics.3       Opinions  the  most  opposite  prevailed, 
as  to  the  duration  of  our  Lord's  public  ministry  ;  so  that  even 
on  a  question  of  time,  respecting  a  most  notorious  and  inter- 
esting subject,  tradition,  in  a  short  time,  spread  the  most  vari- 
ant apostolic  declarations.4     These  fathers  taught  that  Enoch 
and  Elias  would  hereafter  reappear  on  earth,  at  the    place 
from  which  they  ascended  to  heaven,  in  order  to  wage  war 
with  antichrist.5       Many  of  them  taught  the  absolute  unlaw- 
fulness of  an  oath  to  a  christian  man.6    They  enjoined  stand- 
ing at  prayer  on    Sundays,  and  during  the  period  between 
Easter  and  Whitsuntide.7  Ignatius,  on  his  way  to  Rome,  ad- 
monished the  churches  of  Asia,  '  to  take  especial  heed  to  the 
heresies  which  were  then  springing  up  and  increasing.'8  Pa- 
pias,  also,  about  A.  D.  110,  intimates  that  there  were  those,  at 
that  time,  who  delivered  strange  and  spurious  precepts.9   Heg- 
esippus  further  records  the  same  melancholy  truth.    And  thus 
are  we  taught,  that  at  no  time  were  these  ancient  writers 
agreed,  or  free  from  error  ;  and  that,  in  testifying  to  the  undue 
exaltation  of  the  ministry,  they  may  be  well  supposed  to  tes- 
tify to  an  error,  especially  as  we  are  assured  that  the  fathers 
were  in  the  habit  of  claiming  the  authority  of  the  church,  gen- 
erally, for  their  own  personal  and  visionary  dreams  ;10  and  that 
even  when  they  did  assemble  in  general  councils,  they  could 
not  agree,  nor  prevent  some  subsequent  council  from  openly 
contradicting  their  decisions.11 

Even,  therefore,  in  those  writings  of  the  fathers  that  do  re- 
main, no  consent  is  to  be  looked  for.12  This  has  been  admit- 
ted, by  some  of  the  best  authors,  both  among  the  Protestants 
and  Romanists,13  so  that,  as  Gregory  de  Valentia  says,  '  it 
must  be  confessed  that  it  can  rarely  happen,  that  we  can  suf- 
ficiently know  what  was  the  opinion  of  all  the  doctors,'14  and, 

1)  Goode,  vol.  i.  pp.  313,323.  9)  Ibid,  iii.  c.  ult. 

2)  Ibid,  323-330.  10)  See  Goode,  as  above,  pp.  345- 

3)  Ibid,  pp.  330-343.  351. 

4)  Ibid,  pp.  343-345.  11)  Ibid,  pp.  351,  355,  and  Daille, 

5)  Ibid,  pp.  414-417.  p.  170,  &c.  Eng.  ed.  and  322,  &c. 
C)   Ibid,  pp.  417-421.  12)   Ibid,  p.  395,  &c. 

7)  Ibid,  pp.  421-426.  13)   Ibid,  p.  356  -  358. 

8)  Euseb.  Eccl.  Hist.  iii.  36.  14)  In  ibid,  p.  356. 

41 


322  THE    FATHERS    THEMSELVES  TESTIFY  [BOOK  II. 

as  Jeremy  Taylor  affirms,  '  there  is  no  question  this  day  in 
contestation,  in  the  explication  of  which  all  the  old  writers 
did  consent.' 1  The  truth  of  which  opinion  is  not  only  evinced 
by  the  fact,  that  they  ever  have  been  quoted  by  the  most  op- 
posite parties,  but  that  the  most  ancient  heretics  were  accus- 
tomed to  claim  for  their  heresies  an  undoubted  apostolical 
tradition.  They  were  in  the  habit  of  appealing  to  patristical 
tradition  as  in  their  favor,2  and  of  saying,  as  Jerome  testifies, 
'we  are  the  sons  of  those  wise  men,  who  from  the  beginning 
have  delivered  to  us  the  doctrine  of  the  apostles.'3  Besides, 
the  rival  appeals  made  to  patristical  tradition,  in  ancient  times, 
on  several  of  the  most  important  points,  were  grounded  on 
testimonies  which  we  do  not  now  possess,  and  thus  any  par- 
tial consent,  at  present  found  to  exist,  is  materially  reduced  in 
value  and  importance.4 

This  whole  appeal  to  the  fathers,  as  authoritatively  convey- 
ing to  us  the  doctrine  of  the  apostles,  is  based  upon  two  un- 
founded hypotheses ;  first,  that  there  was  a  steady  successional 
delivery,  throughout  the  whole  catholic  church,  from  one  to 
another,  in  every  age,  of  the  oral  teaching  of  the  apostles ;  and, 
secondly,  that  in  this  teaching  and  practice,  all  in  communion 
with  the  church,  being  united  together  as  one  body,  and  under 
one  discipline,  agreed.5  But  these  are  both  most  contrary  to 
facts.  There  were,  as  has  been  shown,  and  that  too  within 
the  bosom  of  the  church,  many  heresies,  errors,  false  doctrines, 
and  contradictory  practices ;  and  the  churches  were  at  no  time, 
in  the  early  period  of  Christianity,  thus  bound  and  compacted 
together,  or  united  in  their  sentiments. 

§  5.  The  fathers,  themselves,  teach  us  not  to  trust  in  the 
testimony  of  the  fathers,  as  to  what  is  scriptural  and  apos- 
tolical. 

And,  in  thus  rejecting  the  fathers,  as  authoritative  in  de- 
ciding any  question  of  scripture  doctrine,  or  divine  in- 
stitution, we  are  sustained  by  these  fathers  themselves, 
who  uniformly  refer  to  scripture  as  the  only  certain,  final, 
and  infallible  rule.  '  Take  from  the  heretics,'  observes 
Tertullian,  '  that  in  which  the  ethnics  are  wise,  that  they  may 
settle  their  questions  by  the  scriptures  alone,  and  they  cannot 
stand.'6     It  is  necessary  for  us,  observes  Origen,  to  call  in  the 

1)  Liberty  of    Prophecying,   viii.  3)  Comm.  on  Is.  c.19,  tom.  iv.  e 
§  3.  184,  ed.  Bened. 

2)  Goode,  as  above,  p.  394,  &c.  4)   Goode,  ibid,  p.  390,  &c. 
wbere  see  numerous  examples.  5)  Ibid,  vol.  i.  p.  426,  &c. 

6)  Tert.  De  Resur.  Cam.  c.  3, 


CHAP.  I.]   AGAINST  THE  AUTHORITY  OF  THE  FATHERS.    323 

testimony  of  the  holy  scriptures ;  for  our  senses  and  exposi- 
tions are  not  entitled  to  faith  without  those  witnesses.1  '  It 
is  a  manifest  falling  from  the  faith,'  declares  Basil,  '  and 
conviction  of  arrogancy,  to  set  aside  what  is  written,  and  add 
any  thing  that  is  not  written.'2  '  Let  him  be  accursed,'  declar- 
ed Ambrose,  in  the  council  of  Aquileia,  '  who  adds  any  thing, 
or  takes  any  thing  from  scripture :  all  the  bishops  said,  let 
him  be  accursed.'3  '  Except  by  the  apostles,'  declares  Jerome, 
'let  whatever  else  has  been  said  be  rejected;  let  it  not  have 
authority.'  '  Although  any  one  be  holy  after  the  apostles,  al- 
though eloquent,  let  him  have  no  authority.'4  '  If  any  thing,' 
declares  Augustine,  'is  confirmed  by  the  plain  authority  of 
the  scriptures,  without  any  doubt,  it  should  be  believed  :  but, 
as  to  other  witnesses  and  testimonies,  it  is  lawful  for  you  to 
believe,  or  not  believe  them,  as  far  as  you  shall  consider  them 
to  have,  or  not  to  have,  weight  in  the  forming  of  faith.'5  '  We 
have  need  of  the  scriptures,'  declares  Chrysostom,  '  because 
many  have  corrupted  the  doctrine.'6  '  We  owe  that  unfetter- 
ed submission  to  the  sacred  scriptures,  that  we  follow  them 
alone,  as  we  have  no  doubt  that  the  authors  of  them  have 
neither  erred  in  them,  nor  inserted  any  thing  fallacious  in 
them.'7  Thus  Chrysostom,  who  calls  the  scriptures  'the 
rule  of  all  things,'  that  is,  of  all  religious  truth,  says,  '  a  rule 
receives  neither  addition  or  diminution,  otherwise  it  ceases  to 
be  a  rule.'  And  Basil,  reproving  Eunomius  for  saying  that 
the  creed,  while  he  called  it  a  standard  and  rule,  needed  an  ad- 
dition to  make  it  more  accurate,  observes  that  this  is  the  ex- 
treme of  folly,  for  that '  a  standard  and  rule,  as  long  as  nothing 
is  wanting  to  them  to  make  them  a  standard  and  rule,  admit 
no  addition  for  greater  accuracy.  For  an  addition  is  wanting 
only  to  supply  a  defect ;  but  if  they  were  imperfect,  they  could 
not  properly  be  called  by  these  names.' 8 

§  6.  Prelatists  themselves  teach  us,  that  even  the  universal 
consent  of  the  fathers  is  not  sufficient  to  establish  any  doc- 
trine or  practice. 

And,  if  we  could  suppose  the  fathers  were  generally  and 
thoroughly  in  favor  of  prelacy,  yet  what  would  this  conclude 

1)  Origen,  in  Ierem.  6)   Chrysost.  Horn.  i.  in  Matt.  cf. 

2)  Basil.  De  Confess.  Fid.  in  Ps.  95,  in    Nolan's  Cath.    Char,  of 

3)  Ambros.  Ep.  8,    Gest.   Cone.     Christ,  p.  66. 

Aquil.  c.  795,d.  7)  August.  Ep.  19,  ad.  Hieron. 

4)  Hier.  in  Ps.  88,  torn,  vii.p.  110.  8)  See  also  August,  de  Unit.  Eccl. 

5)  Aug.  Ep.  112,  cf.  contr.  Faust,     c.  3. 
Manich.  lib. 


324  PRELATES    THEMSELVES    TEACH    US  [BOOK  II. 

against  the  truth  as  established  by  the  word  of  God.  Do  not 
our  opponents  themselves  teach  us  to  set  at  nought  even  such 
a  unanimous  judgment  of  the  fathers,  by  their  reprobation  of 
what  was  thus  acknowledged  ?  Thus,  to  give  an  instance  or 
two,  in  their  own  words;1  in  the  famous  question  of  the  vir- 
gin's immaculate  conception,  though  the  fathers  are  acknowl- 
edged to  be  generally  against  it,  and  the  Romish  bishop 
Canus2  reckons  up  St.  Ambrose,  St.  Austin,  St.  Chrysostom, 
and  a  great  many  more,  who  expressly  assert,  '  her  being  con- 
ceived in  original  sin,'  and  says,  '  that  this  is  the  unanimous 
opinion  of  all  the  fathers  who  happen  to  make  mention  of  it  ;3 
yet  he  declares  this  to  be  a  very  weak  and  infirm  argument, 
which  is  drawn  from  the  authority  of  all  the  fathers,  and  that, 
notwithstanding  this  authority,  the  contrary  opinion  is  piously 
and  probably  maintained  and  defended  in  the  church.'4  Bel- 
larmine  also  says,  '  they  are  not  to  be  reckoned  among  cath- 
olics,'5 who  are  of  another  opinion  ;  though  this  other  opinion, 
it  seems,  was  that  of  all  antiquity.  Thus,  at  other  times,  Bel- 
larmine  shifts  off  the  authority  of  St.  Cyprian,  when  he  plain- 
ly opposes  that  of  the  pope,  and  says, '  that  he  mortally  erred 
and  offended  in  so  doing;'6  and  concerning  Justin  Martyr, 
Irenaeus,  and  others,  '  their  opinion,  (he  says,)  cannot  be  de- 
fended from  great  error  ;' 7  that  is,  when  it  is  against  his  own. 
Of  St.  Jerome  he  also  says,  ' he  was  of  that  opinion;  but 
it  is  false,  and  shall  be  refuted.'8  And,  to  mention  no  more, 
(though  Romanists  stick  not  upon  all  occasions  to  slight  and 
contemn  antiquity,  when  it  will  not  make  for  them,)  Baroni- 
us,  one  of  their  greatest  searchers  into  antiquity,  but  as  great 
a  corrupter  of  it,  who  had  taken  that  oath,  I  suppose,  prescrib- 
ed by  pope  Pius  IV,  not  to  receive  or  expound  scripture  but 
according  to  the  uniform  consent  of  the  fathers,  yet  doth  un- 
warily, but  ingenuously  confess,  that '  the  holy  fathers,  whom, 
for  their  great  learning,  he  justly  calls  the  doctors  of  the 
church,  yet  the  catholic  (that  is  Roman)  church  doth  not 
always  follow,  nor  in  all  things,  in  the  interpretation  of  scrip- 
ture.' 9 

What  then  does  all  this  bombastic  eulogy  of  the  fathers, 
and  this  reverend  submission  to  their  authority,  come  to  ? 
Let  them  but  breathe  a  sentiment,  discordant  to  this  prelatic 
theory  of  sacerdotal  eminence,  and  they  are  forthwith  made 

1)  Notes  of  the  Ch.  pp.165,  166.  6)  Ibid,  lib.  iv.   de    Rom.    Font. 

2)  De  Sanct.   Anct.  lib.  vii.  loc.    cap.  7. 

Theol.cap.  1.  7)  Ibid,  de  Beat.  lib.  i.  cap.  6. 

3)  Ibid.  8)  Ibid,  de  Pont.  Rom.  lib.  i.  cap.  8. 

4)  R>id.  9)  Baron.  Annal.  Eccl.ann.  34.  n. 

5)  Bellarm.  de  Amis.  Grat.  lib.  iv.  213 ;  Colom.  p.  218. 
ap.  15. 


CHAP.  I.]  TO  REJECT  THE  AUTHORITY  OF  THE  FATHERS.    325 

to  feel  the  weight  of  prelatic  vengeance,  and  are  taught  to  bow 
their  haughty  spirits  to  the  supremacy  of  church  authority. 
Let  Aerius  attempt  to  bear  testimony  against  this  system,  as 
a  novelty,  an  innovation,  and  as  thus  contrary  to  scripture, 
and  he  is  soon  condemned  as  a  heretic,  and  his  noble  testi- 
mony branded  with  all  the  vituperation  which  insulted  power 
can  heap  upon  it.  Let  even  the  learned  Jerome,  prince  of 
fathers  and  divines,  lift  his  venerable  head  in  protestation 
against  this  enormous  fraud  upon  the  rights  of  presbyters, 
and  there  is  not  an  underling  in  the  prelatic  host,  that  does  not 
feel  himself  at  liberty  to  beard  him  with  the  charge  of  igno- 
rance and  mistake.  We  can  hear  even  a  German  renegade1 
assault  him,  as  being  '  misled  by  an  ambiguity  of  words,' 
though  such  a  perfect  linguist,  'and  an  inaccurate  acquain- 
tance with  the  condition  of  the  primitive  church,'  though 
nearer  to  it  by  some  thousand  years  than  his  bold  critic,  and 
though  he  wore  out  his  life  in  the  vain  pursuit  of  traditionary 
legends.  But  when  this  same  father  sacrilegiously  exalts  the 
dignity  of  the  priesthood,  then  '  St.  Jerome  was  right,  in 
thinking  that  the  prosperity  of  a  church  depended  on  the 
dignity  of  its  chief  priest.'  2 

§  7.     The  testimony  of  the  fathers,  according'  to  their  ablest 
advocate,  not  applicable  to  this  prelatic  controversy. 

But,  to  crown  all,  it  is  admitted,  even  by  Vincentius  himself, 
that  the  application  of  this  universal  consent  of  all  the  fathers, 
as  a  test  of  truth,  cannot  be  of  any  service  in  the  detection  of 
error,  except  when  it  is  new  and  upstart?  '  Neither  yet,'  says 
he,  '  are  heresies  always,  nor  all,  after  this  sort,  to  be  impugned, 
but  only  such  as  are  new  and  upstart.'  Confirmed  and  long- 
established  errors  'we  must  not  otherwise  convince,  but  only, 
if  need  be,  by  the  authority  of  the  scriptures.'  Prelacy,  there- 
fore, being  a  long-established  error,  may  well  be  expected  to 
have  a  show  of  patristical  authority ;  and  presbytery,  being 
neither  new  nor  upstart,  the  claims  of  both  systems  to  aposto- 
licity  must  be  tried  by  the  scriptures  of  truth.  He  also 
excludes,  by  special  limitation,  all  questions  touching  church 
government,  ceremonies,  and  rituals,  in  a  word,  the  whole 
question  of  what  are  termed  church  principles,  from  the  deter- 
mination of  this  celebrated  rule.    '  Ancient  consent  of  holy 

1)  Saravia  on  the  Priesthood,  p.  3)  See  his  Commonit.  c.  28  and 
223.                                                                30;  see  also  in  Goode,  vol.  i.  p.  161. 

2)  Ibid,  p.  259. 


326  HOW    FAR    THE    TESTIMONY  [BOOK  II. 

fathers  is  not  so  carefully  and  diligently  to  be  both  sought  for, 
and  followed,  in  every  small  question  of  the  divine  law ;  but 
only,  or  at  least  especially,  in  the  rule  of  faith.' :  So  that,  on 
the  very  subject  for  which  prelatists  most  esteem  the  tradi- 
tion of  the  fathers,  their  own  master  tells  them  it  is  of  no 
manner  of  use,  and  without  authority  or  power,  and  that,  for 
its  determination,  they  must  go  to  the  word  of  God.  Thus 
does  he  cut  the  very  ground  from  under  them,  and  destroy 
their  foundations. 

§  8.     How  far  the  testimony  of  the  fathers  is  to  be  admitted. 

We  cannot,  therefore,  allow  that  the  question  of  the  divine 
right  of  prelacy  or  presbytery  can  ever  be  decided  by  an 
appeal  to  the  fathers  ;  or  that  any  prevalence  and  establish- 
ment of  the  former,  in  ages  subsequent  to  the  apostolic,  can 
afford  any  certainty  that  it  was  instituted  by  the  apostles.  It 
is  only  so  far  as  this  system,  and  the  testimony  of  the  fathers 
concerning  it,  accords  with  scripture,  that  they  can  have  any 
recommendation  to  the  reverence  and  obedience  of  christians.2 
The  fathers  can  only  be  admitted  as  witnesses  to  the  opinions, 
practices,  and  facts  of  their  own  times,  and  to  their  reported 
succession  from  the  apostles.  In  this  respect  they  are  valu- 
able, and  to  be  treated  with  all  the  reverence  and  respect  to 
which  their  character  entitles  them.  As  reporters  of  the  facts 
of  their  own  early  age,  as  far  as  their  probable  information, 
judgment,  and  integrity  qualified  them  so  to  be,  and  as  far 
as  we  may  feel  confidence  in  possessing  their  unadulterated 
testimony,  they  are  legitimately  entitled  to  great  and  deserved 
honor.  And,  so  far  as  they  agree  in  reference  1o  such  facts, 
they  will  have  undoubted  weight,  in  giving  preponderance 
to  that  interpretation  of  those  portions  of  scripture  whose 
meaning  is  fairly  questionable,  and  which  such  facts  would 
imply.  Were  the  earlier  fathers,  therefore,  unanimously  and 
clearly,  to  attest  the  existence  of  the  system  of  prelacy,  in  their 
day,  and  in  all  their  churches,  prelatists  would  certainly  be 
entitled  to  the  powerful  presumption  thus  created  in  favor  of 
their  interpretation  of  scripture  ;  just  as  presbyterians  claim  a 
similar  presumption,  supposing  the  testimony  to  be,  as  they 
believe  it  is,  reversed,  or  to  be  even  doubtful. 

1)   C.  28  ;    see    Jordan's  Rev.  of  2)  See  Lond. Christ.  Obs.  1837,  pp 

Tradition,  pp.  124,  125,  who  adopts  145-147;  Ogilby  on  Lay  Baptism, 
our  interpretation.  p.  32. 


CHAP.  I.]  OF    THE    FATHERS    IS    ADMISSIBLE.  327 


§  9.  Our  reasons  for  proceeding  to  adduce  the  testimonies  of 
the  fathers ;  and  the  great  weight  to  be  attached  to  any 
remaining  evidence  in  the  fathers  in  favor  of  presbytery. 

As  witnesses,  therefore,  we  are  willing  to  examine  into  the 
testimony  of  the  fathers  on  this  subject.  Inasmuch,  too,  as 
prelatists  confidently  appeal  to  the  universal  consent  of  these 
fathers  in  favor  of  their  system,  the  production  of  contrary 
evidence,  from  these  very  writers,  will  afford  us  an  over- 
whelming argumentum  ad  hominem,  and  at  once  destroy  the 
force  and  validity  of  their  plea.  The  fathers  are  their  own 
chosen  witnesses,  produced  in  court,  to  authenticate  their 
claims;  and  if,  therefore,  any  number  of  these  witnesses  are 
found  to  turn  king's  evidence,  and  to  testify  against  them,  our 
cause  must  receive  corresponding  favor  with  all  impartial 
judges.  This  presumption  on  behalf  of  presbytery,  arising 
from  the  favorable  evidence  of  any  number  of  these  fathers, 
will  be  powerfully  augmented  by  the  recollection  of  the  fact, 
already  proved,  that  the  written  testimony  of  these  men  has 
been  deliberately  corrupted,  and  interpolated  by  our  oppo- 
nents. So  that  if,  as  they  now  are,  they  speak  favorably  of 
the  system  of  presbytery,  it  may  be  safely  presumed  that,  in 
their  original  condition,  they  gave  more  unequivocal  testimony 
to  the  same  system. 

It  is  acknowledged  by  all  protestants,  that  the  system  of  the 
Romish  hierarchy  is  not,  in  many  things,  the  simple  polity  of 
the  apostolic  churches.  This  system,  it  must  also  be  admit- 
ted, began  very  early  to  manifest  its  approaches,  and  very 
gradually  to  extend,  until  it  became  the  established  order  of 
the  church.  If,  therefore,  the  fathers  are  found  giving  any 
testimony,  however  feeble,  and  to  any  extent,  however  par- 
tial,,to  the  original  character,  and  present  diversity  of  the  gov- 
ernment and  order  of  the  church,  —  even  this  is  more  than 
could  have  been  anticipated,  and  is  abundantly  sufficient  to 
outweigh  the  salaried  evidence  of  suborned  witnesses,  who  were 
themselves  partners  in  the  scheme  of  clerical  aggrandizement, 
and  sharers  in  all  the  honors,  titles,  and  spoils,  of  clerical 
encroachment  and  usurpation.  It  was  not  long  before  it 
became  unpopular,  dangerous,  and  contrary  to  all  personal  and 
selfish  interests,  to  oppose  the  hierarchy,  in  whose  hands,  from  a 
variety  of  circumstances,  the  wealth  and  power  of  the  church 
were  concentrated.  Any  testimony,  then,  delivered  under 
such  circumstances,  and  in  the  face  of  anathema,  excommu- 
nication, banishment,  and  the  brand  of  infamous  heresy,  may 


328  THE    EXPEDIENTS    OF    PRELATICAL  [BOOK  II. 

well  be  regarded  as  founded  in  the  deepest  sincerity,  and 
resting  upon  undeniable  facts ;  whereas  the  evidence  of 
hierarchists,  being  given  in  favor  of  their  own  order,  is  open 
to  fair  and  serious  challenge.  In  short,  as  the  testimony  of 
an  enemy,  given  by  constraint,  and  not  willingly,  is  of  more 
importance  in  establishing  any  claims,  than  any  quantity  of 
interested  testimony,  therefore  do  we  maintain  that  the  small- 
est amount  of  evidence,  wrung  by  the  force  of  uncontrolla- 
ble circumstances,  from  the  bosom  of  the  hierarchy,  from  the  lips 
of  the  fathers  themselves,  must  be  of  more  importance  in 
establishing  the  claims  of  presbytery,  than  is  all  the  opposing 
evidence  of  hierarchists,  in  supporting  prelacy. 

We  do  not,  therefore,  attempt  to  prove  the  universal  con- 
sent of  all  the  fathers  in  favor  of  our  views,  though,  as  it  re- 
gards the  earliest  fathers,  we  do  claim  even  this  much.  Such 
an  attempt  would  be,  of  course,  ridiculous,  since  it  is  on  all 
hands,  acknowledged,  that  after  an  insidious  and  gradual 
progress,  prelacy  became  the  order  of  the  church,  the  church 
being  the  patron  and  the  home  of  these  fathers.  All  that  we 
expect,  therefore,  is  to  point  out  in  the  language  and  writings 
of  many  of  these  fathers,  enough  to  prove,  that  while  they 
went  along  with  the  system  of  prelacy,  and  were  partakers 
of  its  offices,  they  clearly  saw  and  admitted  that  prelacy  was 
not  the  original  order  of  the  church,  and  that  it  rested  upon  no 
other  foundation  than  the  authority  of  ecelesiastical  custom. l 

§  10.  The  expedients  of  prelatical  sophistry,  in  reference  to  the 
testimony  of  the  fathers,  illustrated,  in  thirteen  introductory 
cautions  submitted  to  the  reader. 

Before,  however,  adducing  any  evidence,  it  may  be  well 
to  notice  some  of  those  expedients  which  have  been  resorted 
to  by  prelatists,  in  order  to  elude  our  deductions  both  from 
antiquity  and  scripture,  and  of  which  it  is  necessary  to  ap- 
prize the  reader,  that  he  may  be  on  his  guard  against  them. 

1)   On   this    whole    subject,  see  during  the  Ante  Nicene  Period.   Oxf. 

Goode's   Divine    Rule  of    Faith   and  1839.     Dr.  Hawkins,  on  Unauthorita- 

Practice.     Daille's  Right  Use   of  the  tive  Tradition.     Whateley's  Dangers 

Fathers,  recently  republished  in  Eng-  to  the    Christian  Faith,  pp.  131,  132, 

land,  and  this  country.     An  admirable  141,  &c.      Lond.    Chr.    Observer,  for 

little  work,  '  Letters  on  the  Writings  Aug.  1840,  p.  460,  &c.  Chillingworth's 

of   the    Fathers,  by    Misopapisticus,'  Wks.  vol.  i.  pp.  412,  413,  &c.     Robert 

Lond.  1838.     Osborne's  Doctrinal  Er-  Hall's  Wks.  vol  ii.  p.  72.    Whateley's 

rors  of   the    Apostolical   and    Early  Kingdom  of  Christ,  essay  ii.  pp.  137, 

Fathers.     Lond.    1835.     Conybeare's  151.    Eng.  ed.    Also,  Dr.  Ibbott  on  the 

Bampton  Lectures  on  the  Char.  Value,  Authority  of  the  Ancients,  in  the  Boyle 

and  Just  Application  of  the  Fathers,  Lect.     Fol.  vol.  ii.  p.  832,  &c. 


CHAP.  I.]  SOPHISTRY    EXPOSED.  329 

1.  The  first  of  these  fallacies  we  shall  mention,  respects  the 
enumeration  of  church  officers,  by  the  fathers.  When  these 
writers  enumerate  the  officers  of  the  church,  under  the  names 
of  bishops,  presbyters,  and  deacons,  it  is  immediately  conclu- 
ded that,  as  these  names  indicate,  in  the  prelatic  system,  three 
orders  of  the  ministry,  therefore  these  fathers  believed  in 
three  orders  of  one  ministry.  But  this  is  a  gross  assumption 
of  the  whole  matter  in  debate.  For  presbyterians  also  be- 
lieve that  Christ  instituted  bishops,  presbyters,  and  deacons  in 
his  church,  and  therefore  they  still  retain  these  names  and 
officers.  But  they  deny  that  in  scripture,  or  the  earliest  wri- 
ters, these  terms  were  applied  to  three  orders  in  the  ministry. 
They  maintain  that  bishops  and  presbyters  were  names  of 
one  and  the  same  order  of  ministers,  while  deacons  were  not 
an  order  of  ministers  at  all,  but  only  a  class  of  ecclesiastical 
officers.  Many  also  believe  that  there  were  presbyters,  who 
acted  as  rulers  only,  and  not  as  teachers,  and  who  may,  there- 
fore, in  any  such  enumeration  of  the  three  classes  of  church 
officers,  be  understood  by  this  term.  But,  even  disallowing 
this  opinion,  and  bearing  in  mind  the  fact  that,  in  the  earliest 
churches,  there  were  a  plurality  of  ministers,  as  well  as  other 
officers,  these  three  terms  may  refer,  —  the  two  first  to  the 
president  and  his  co-presbyters ;  and  the  last  to  the  deacons. 
The  question,  therefore,  is,  in  which  of  these  senses  the  fath- 
ers did  actually  use  these  terms ;  and  inasmuch  as  they  are 
confessedly  employed  throughout  the  scriptures,  in  the  pres- 
byterian,  and  not  in  the  prelatic  sense,  we  demand  some  pos- 
itive evidence  that  the  fathers  had  altered  the  meaning  at- 
tached to  these  words. 

2.  The  second  of  these  fallacies  we  shall  notice,  respects  the 
assumed  omissions  of  these  fathers  in  the  enumeration  of 
church  offices.  If  the  theory  of  presbyterians  is  correct, 
then  we  might  expect  to  find  that  the  officers  of  the  church 
would  be  sometimes  enumerated  under  two  heads,  bishops 
or  presbyters,  and  deacons ;  and  sometimes  under  three,  as  bish- 
ops, presbyters,  and  deacons ;  and  that  sometimes  the  minis- 
ters should  be  all  called  bishops,  and  sometimes  presbyters. 
Now  such  is  the  actual  fact,  as  we  have  seen,  in  scrip- 
ture,1 and  such  also  is  the  case  in  the  early  fathers.  On  the 
prelatic  system,  however,  we  never  could  expect  to  find  the 
officers  of  the  church  ranked  under  two  denominations,  since 
its  essential  feature  is,  that  the  orders  of  the  ministry  are 
three,  distinct,  necessary,  and  all-important  orders.     Prelatic 

1)  See  B.i.  c.  iv.§  6. 

42 


330  THE    EXPEDIENTS    OP    PRELATICAL  [BOOK  II. 

reasoners,  however,  '  appear  to  value  more  highly  what  a 
writer  has  not  written,  than  what  he  has  written.  They  place 
more  reliance  upon  the  silence,  than  upon  the  speech,  of  a 
witness.  They  supply  all  deficiencies  out  of  their  own  inge- 
nuity,' and  thus,  when  we  are  told  that  bishops  and  deacons 
are  the  officers  known  in  Christ's  church,  they  make  bishop 
include  presbyters  by  some  prelatic  figure  of  speech,  or  kindly 
intimate  that  the  writer  recognised  in  himself  a  superior  order, 
and  only  noticed  those  which  were  inferior.  And  in  order  to 
color  over  this  sophistical  legerdemain,  they  point  their  read- 
ers to  those  other  passages  in  which  the  three  terms  are  used, 
but  where  there  is  manifestly  no  implication  of  three  orders 
of  the  ministry.  Thus  Clement  Romanas,  whenever  he  al- 
ludes, with  any  distinctness,  to  the  officers  of  the  church, 
speaks  only  of  bishops  or  presbyters,  and  deacons ;  and  in 
order  to  evade  the  force  of  his  testimony,  we  are  pointed  to 
an  obscure  passage,  in  which  he  alludes  to  the  Jewish  hier- 
archy, but  where  there  is  no  foundation,  whatever,  for  prelat- 
ical  pretensions.1 

Connected  with  this  is  another  fallacy,  founded  on  the 
present  meaning  of  the  terms  order,  office,  and  grade; 
in  concluding,  that  when  the  fathers  speak  of  different  orders, 
&c,  they  also  meant  classes  of  officers  entirely  distinct  in 
power,  and  authority,  and  original  divine  institution.  Now  it 
will  be  found,  on  the  contrary,  that  as  these  fathers  used  the 
titles  of  the  ministry  interchangeably,  so  do  they  employ 
these  terms  without  any  special  distinction,  and,  in  fact,  as 
synonymous.  The  words  ordo,  officium,  and  gradus,  are,  in 
the  fathers,  used  promiscuously.2  They  only  meant  by  these 
terms  to  designate  different  classes  of  persons,  without  em- 
ploying any  divine  authority  for  the  arrangement.  They  are 
given  to  readers,  janitors,  exorcists,  and  sub-deacons,  just 
as  readily  as  to  deacons,  presbyters,  or  bishops.3 

3.  A  third  fallacy,  to  which  our  brethren  of  the  prelatic  sect 
are  addicted,  is,  to  date  the  testimony  of  the  fathers  from  a 
period  earlier  than  can,  with  any  reason  or  probability,  be 
granted  to  them,  and  thus  to  attribute  to  the  first  century  what 
properly  belongs  to  the  second,  and  so  on.  To  this  unfair 
mode  of  calculation,  they  add  the  most  unreasonable  delu- 
sion of  embodying  in  these  fathers  all  the  antiquity,  experi- 

1)  See  his  testimony,  and  on  the  3)  See  Cyprian,  Ep.  33,  34,  24. 
subterfuges  of  prelatists,  Boyse'sAnct.  Euseb.  Eccl.  Hist.  lib.  vi.  c.  43.  Je- 
Christianity.  rome's  Wks.  vol.  v.  fol.  41.  In  Powell, 

2)  See  Bingham's  Eccl.  Ant.  B.  p.  88. 
ii.  c.  1,  p.  17.     Bp.  Taylor  asserts  the 

same  thing.     See  in  Powell,  p.  88. 


CHAP.  I.]  SOPHISTRY    EXPOSED.  331 

ence,  and  knowledge  of  the  last  eighteen  hundred  years. 
The  truth,  however,  is,  as  has  been  seen,  that  the  fathers,  of  all 
christian  writers,  had  the  least  experience,  and  are  the  least 
entitled  to  any  weight  derivable  from  age.  They  were  the 
first  conscript  soldiers  of  the  cross.  Their  lives  were  spent 
upon  the  battle-field.  They  had  but  little  opportunity  for 
meditation  and  composition.  Their  intercourse  was  limited, 
and  their  capacity  to  give  testimony,  as  to  universal  customs, 
exceedingly  small. 

4.  A  fourth  expedient  resorted  to  by  the  advocates  of  the 
prelatical  denomination,  is,  to  elevate  the  writers  of  the  third, 
fourth,  and  following  centuries,  to  an  equality  with  those  of 
the  first  and  second.  Now  upon  any  question  which  in- 
volved opinions,  it  may  be  quite  true,  that,  the  later  fathers 
were  better  doctors,  and  possessed  of  more  learning  and 
knowledge,  than  the  earlier;  and  may,  therefore,  be  much 
more  able  to  persuade  us  by  the  strength  of  their  arguments. 
But  in  any  question  of  fact,  as  to  what  was  -taught  or  insti- 
tuted by  the  apostles,  the  earlier  must  take  immeasurable 
precedence  of  the  later  writers.  Such  things  can  only  be 
proved  by  the  testimony  of  ear  and  eye  witnesses.  All  sub- 
sequent testimony  can  only  be  report.  The  later  fathers, 
therefore,  are  not  competent  to  give  evidence  in  the  case  be- 
fore us.  They  had  not  the  means  of  fully  knowing  the  facts. 
They  were  also  so  circumstanced  as  to  be  very  liable  to  de- 
ception, as  to  the  truth  in  the  case.  Whatever,  therefore, 
may  be  their  character,  we  must  utterly  deny  their  compe- 
tency. There  was,  too,  every  thing  to  induce  these  men  to 
impute  views  and  practices  on  this  subject  to  the  apostles, 
which  ihey  never  approved;  and  were  they,  therefore,  even 
competent  witnesses,  we  should  question  their  credibility  on 
a  point  which  involved  their  own  personal  interest,  pride,  and 
station. 

5.  Nearly  connected  with  this  fallacy  is  the  general  practice 
of  prelatists,  in  commencing  their  examination  of  the  fathers 
with  those  of  the  fourth  or  fifth  centuries,  and  then  making 
their  testimony,  their  interpretation,  and  their  definition  of 
terms,  explain  the  testimony  of  the  earlier  ages,  and  these 
again  the  testimony  of  scripture.  But  this  conduct  is  most 
preposterous  and  unbearable.  We  allow  that,  in  the  fourlh 
century,  the  corruptions  of  prelacy  had  become  generally 
established,  but  we  deny  that  they  existed  in  the  apostolic 
age,  or  that  the  same  words  then  indicated  the  same  things. 
We  altogether  reject  the  authority  of  the  church,  when  corrupt, 
to  interpret  the  laws  and  customs  of  the  church  when  pure. 


332  THE    EXPEDIENTS    OF    PRELATICAL  [BOOK  TI. 

The  only  reasonable  course  is,  to  ascertain  the  meaning  of 
terras,  in  the  original  charter  and  institution  of  the  church, 
and  then  to  carry  with  us,  to  the  explanation  of  the  fathers, 
these  unquestionable  data.  Otherwise,  papists  may  as  well 
take  the  customs  and  definitions  of  the  church  now,  and, 
tracing  backwards,  apply  these  meanings  to  the  interpretation 
of  terms  in  all  preceding  ages,  and  thus  make  the  scriptures, 
and  all  intermediate  ages,  teach  what  their  church  teaches 
now.  But  every  one  knows  that  it  has  been  the  policy  of  the 
Romish  church  to  attach  erroneous  and  improper  meanings  to 
scriptural  terms,  (as,  for  instance,  penance  to  repentance,  and 
priest  to  presbyter,)  and  thus  make  scripture  authenticate  their 
errors.  And,  in  like  manner,  do  prelatists  blind  their  readers, 
by  telling  them  that,  as  bishop  now  means  prelate,  in  the  later 
ages  of  the  church,  so,  whenever  we  find  it  in  the  earlier 
fathers,  it  must  indicate  the  highest  of  their  three  assumed 
orders.  But,  as  bishop,  in  scripture,  does  not  mean  prelate, 
but  presbyter,  it.must  also  be  held  to  mean  the  same  thing  in 
the  fathers,  until  we  find  evidence  that  they  had  unrighteously, 
and  in  utter  contempt  of  God's  word,  and  in  defiance  of  the 
express  determination  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  altered  it.  In  like 
manner  would  prelatists  have  us  believe  that  the  bishop's  par- 
ish, duties,  and  functions,  in  the  early  fathers,  are  denoted  by 
the  terms  expressing  them  in  a  later  age,  and  which  had  then 
assumed  a  meaning  entirely  different.  It  is  absurd,  therefore, 
to  commence  with  the  fathers  of  the  fourth  century,  since  we 
must  commence  at  the  beginning.  For  it  will  be  observed 
that  these  prelatical  writers  do  not  only  appeal  to  the  later 
fathers,  as  witnesses  of  the  facts  concerning  their  own  age,  but 
for  their  opinion  also  of  what  is  to  be  understood  by  scripture. 
'  When  we  hear  them,'  says  Mr.  Sinclair,  '  bearing  witness 
not  merely  to  the  actual  existence,  but  to  the  apostolical  insti- 
tution of  the  episcopal  order,  is  no  attention  due  to  their 
evidence  ?  no  weight  or  value  to  be  attached  to  their  testi- 
mony ? ' l  Now  these  fathers  might  as  well  be  produced  as 
witnesses  to  facts  in  the  age  of  Moses,  or  of  Adam,  since  in 
either  case  they  could  only  report  what  they  had  heard. 

6.  Another  and  most  gainful  fallacy  of  the  prelatical 
church,  is  entirely  to  misrepresent  the  real  question  at  issue, 
and  thus  completely  to  blind  the  eyes  of  their  readers,  and 
induce  them  to  believe  that  they  have  proved  their  claims, 
when  they  have  only  authenticated  ours.  Thus  they  tell  us 
the  whole  question  is,  whether  or  not  episcopacy  is  of  apos- 

1)    Sinclair's  Vind.  of  the  Episc.  or  Apost.  Succ.  p.  75. 


CHAP.  I.]  SOPHISTRY    EXPOSED.  333 

tolic  institution  ;  whether  there  have  always  existed  in  Ihe 
church  bishops,  priests,  and  deacons^  and  whether  bishops 
have  not  always  presided  over  the  presbyters  and  deacons. 
Now  this  is  mere  child's  play.  Presbyterians  claim  to  possess 
the  primitive  episcopacy  ;  to  have  bishops,  presbyters,  and  dea- 
cons ;  and  to  have  bishops  who  preside  over  the  other  presby- 
ters and  deacons.  The  true  and  only  inquiry,  therefore,  is,  did 
the  apostles  and  early  fathers  recognise  diocesan  episcopacy  ? 
—  did  they  believe  in  three  distinct  and  separate  orders  of  the 
ministry  ?  And  was  their  president  a  parochial  pastor,  or  a  dio- 
cesan prelate  ?  Any  man  who  will  examine  scripture  and  the 
first  fathers,  with  this  distinction  in  view,  will  at  once  perceive, 
that,  while  they  do  prove  the  existence  of  a  prime  presbyter, 
or  president,  they  utterly  disavow  any  thing  like  a  diocesan 
prelate. 

7.  Another  gross  deception  with  which  prelatists  delude 
many  minds,  is,  to  select  a  few  out  of  many  existing  divines ; 
to  interpret  them  according  to  the  rules  already  laid  down  ; 
and  then  to  make  them  speak  in  the  name  of  the  universal 
church,  as  if  the  millions  of  their  contemporaries,  who  really 
constituted  the  church,  had  delegated  to  them  their  opinions, 
their  knowledge,  and  their  rights.  Or,  as  if  it  were  wonder- 
ful that,  in  all  the  volumes  of  the  fathers,  they  should  find 
some  passages  in  favor  of  a  system  so  zealously  patronized 
by  those,  in  whose  hands  their  works  were  deposited  for 
centuries,  and  through  whom  they  have  come  down  to  our 
times. 

8.  Equally  fallacious  is  the  habit  of  representing  those 
fathers  who  do  testify  to  the  existence,  and  who  speak  favor- 
ably of  the  institution,  of  episcopacy,  as  thereby  declaring  that 
it  was  of  divine  right,  or  essential  to  the  being  of  a  church,  or 
the  necessary  mark  of  a  true  one.  But,  between  these  two 
extremes,  there  is  as  wonderful  a  difference  as  between  Cran- 
mer  and  Laud.1 

9.  A  practice  equally  common  and  more  criminal,  is  that 
of  misrepresenting  the  true  meaning,  and  mistranslating  the 
actual  words,  of  the  fathers,  so  as  to  make  them  speak  favor- 
ably to  prelacy,  when  their  testimony  is  most  against  it.  Oi 
this  they  have  been  frequently  convicted  by  their  own  more 
liberal  brethren.2  Of  this,  archbishop  Wake,  as  we  shall 
show,  is  also  guilty,  in  his  translation  of  the  apostolical  fathers, 

1)  See  our  distinction  insisted  on  Faith,  vol.  i.  p.  6G,  ltd.,  and  vol.  ii.  p. 
by  Perceval  on  the  Roman  Schism,  2'o§,  &c.  Letters  of  the  Fathers,  pp. 
p.  29.  lS4,&c,  192-197,200-212.     Ancient 

2)  See    Goode's    Div.    Rule    of  Christianity. 


334  THE    EXPEDIENTS    OF    PRELATICAL  [BOOK   II. 

in  rendering  the  original  term,  TrqroSvrFQo;,  presbyter,  wherever 
it  might  favor  prelacy,  and  by  the  words  aged  man,  senior  or 
elder,  where  it  would,  as  manifestly,  support  the  claims  of 
presbytery. 

10.  Another  weapon  employed  to  parry  off  the  testimony 
of  the  fathers,  is  the  practice  of  making  their  partial  state- 
ments exclude  their  full  declarations;  and  their  expressed 
approval  of  the  existing  prelacy  of  the  church,  to  destroy  their 
equally  clear  avowal  of  the  opinion  that  prelacy  was  not  the 
first  form  and  order  of  the  church  as  instituted  by  Christ. 
Thus,  because  Chrysostom  was  a  prelate,  and  went  along 
with  the  church,  in  her  then  constitution ;  and  because  Jerome 
also  acquiesced  in  the  existing  order  of  things,  and  recom- 
mended a  corresponding  conduct ;  therefore  no  credence  is 
to  be  given  to  the  wholesale  repudiation  of  the  prelatic  claims 
to  apostolicity  by  Jerome,  or  to  the  testimony  of  Chrysostom, 
and  other  similar  writers,  who  speak  favorably  of  presbytery. 
Now  what  we  are  to  look  to  in  the  fathers  evidently  is,  not 
expressions  of  approbation  of  a  system  then  authoritatively 
imposed ;  but  the  calm  and  impartial  testimony  of  these 
writers  to  what,  in  their  view,  was  the  form  and  order  of  the 
church,  as  instituted  by  the  apostles.  '  And  should  there  even 
be  found,  in  some  of  those  from  whom  we  shall  hereafter 
quote,  observations  in  other  parts  of  their  works,  which  appear 
not  altogether  consistent  with  what  they  have  clearly  expressed 
in  the  passages  we  have  cited,  still,  if  our  views  are  evidently 
maintained  by  them  in  those  passages,  and  the  principle,  there 
contended  for,  shall  appear,  upon  that  examination  which  we 
challenge,  consistent  with  the  general  tone  of  their  remarks 
and  mode  of  arguing,  then  such  apparent  inconsistency, 
however  it  is  to  be  accounted  for,  is  not  sufficient  to  make 
such  authors  our  opponents;  or  even  to  deprive  us  of  the 
evidence  in  our  favor,  afforded  by  the  passages  we  shall 
quote;  especially  when  we  consider  that  the  testimony  given 
in  our  favor,  is,  in  general,  expressed  in  a  direct  recognition 
of  the  claims  of  scripture,' 1  and  contrary  to  their  popularity 
or  interest. 

11.  And  where  prelatists  cannot  in  this  way  get  over  the 
palpable  testimony  of  any  father,  to  the  truth  and  order  of 
Christ's  church,  they  have  no  scruple  whatever  to  brand  him 
as  a  heretic,  and  with  every  other  opprobrious  name,  and  to 
extend  their  anathemas  to  all  who  embrace  or  confirm  his 
opinions.     Thus  it  is  that  we  everlastingly  hear  of  the  fatal 

1)  Goode's  Rule  of  Faith,  vol.  ii.  p.  261. 


CHAP.  I.]  SOPHISTRY  EXPOSED.  335 

heresy  and  schism  of  Aerius,  while  there  is  no  manner  of 
foundation  for  the  charge,  and  while  many  of  the  foremost 
writers  of  the  church  have  approved  of  his  judgment.  It  is 
thus  that  the  cry  of  'mad  dog'  is  raised  against  presbytery, 
and  the  rabble  rout  excited,  in  their  ignorant  frenzy,  to  pursue 
and  kill. 

12.  To  this  calumnious  aspersion  of  our  principles  is 
added  the  wonderfully  convincing  argument,  that  our  church, 
as  reformed,  has  existed  only  since  the  reformation ;  while 
the  papacy,  in  all  its  corruptions,  and  the  prelacy,  in  all  its  con- 
formity to  them,  flourished  in  all  their  rank  luxuriance 
throughout  the  putrid  ages  of  the  middle  and  earlier  centuries. 
It  is  amazing  how  efficacious  this  outcry,  together  with  the 
pleas  of  fashion  and  popularity,  have  been,  in  resisting  the 
force  of  truth,  and  in  perpetuating  the  system  of  the  prelacy. 

13.  And  in  order  to  cover  their  designs,  and  give  full 
weight  to  these  suggestions,  a  careful  distinction  is  held  forth 
between  popery  in  its  essential  principles,  and  popery  in  its 
accidental  connections  with  the  church  of  Rome.  The  former 
existed,  in  its  embryo  state,  even  in  the  times  of  the  apostles, 
and  continued  to  grow  until  that  which  hindered,  (that  is,  the 
Roman  empire,)  was  taken  out  of  the  way.  The  latter  was 
manifested  only  at  a  later  period,  when  Rome  became 
metropolis  of  the  church,  and  when  universal  dominion  and 
the  sole  right  to  deal  in  existing  abuses,  were  monopolized 
by  her  bishops.  And  thus  it  is,  that  because  prelacy  can  be 
shown  to  have  existed  prior  to  the  Romish  papacy,  it  cannot, 
we  are  gravely  told,  be  chargeable  with  any  manner  of 
acquaintance  with  Popery  !  But  the  power  which  assumed  the 
prerogative  of  Christ,  and  undertook  to  legislate  for  his  church, 
and  to  institute  new  offices,  and  to  tamper  with  scripture 
officers  and  their  titles,  this  was  popery,  whenever  it  com- 
menced, and  to  this  character  the  prelacy,  in  its  high-church 
phase,  must  be  regarded  as  indisputably  entitled. 

But  enough.  We  only  request  the  reader  to  carry  with 
him,  into  the  examination  of  this  whole  subject,  and  especially 
the  testimony  of  the  fathers  now  to  be  produced,  the  recollec- 
tion of  these  multiplied  artifices  of  our  opponents. 


CHAPTER    II. 


THE   TESTIMONY   OF  THE   APOSTOLIC   FATHERS   TO   THE 

CLAIMS  OF  PRESBYTERY  TO  THE  TRUE 

MINISTERIAL    SUCCESSION. 


§  1.   Classification  of  the  fathers. 

The  fathers  may  be  arranged  under  the  following  classes, 
according  to  the  age  in  which  they  flourished.  I.  The  apos- 
tolical Fathers,  or  those  who  lived  nearest  to  the  time  of 
the  apostles,  and  were  conversant  with  the  disciples  of  the 
apostles,  or  with  christians  taught  by  them.  These  extend 
over  a  period  of  about  one  hundred  and  fifty  years  after 
Christ,  from  A.  D.  71  to  A.  D.  140, x  and  include  Clement 
Romanus,  Polycarp,  Ignatius,  Barnabas,  and  Hermas.2  II. 
The  primitive  Fathers,  or  those  who  lived  from  the  period 
of  the  apostolic  fathers,  to  the  end  of  the  third  century  after 
Christ ;  including  Papias,  Justin  Martyr,  Irenaeus,  Clemens 
Alexandrinus,  Tertullian,  Hippolytus,  Origen,  Gregory  Thau- 
maturgus,  Cyprian,  Firmilian,  and  Novatus.  III.  The  later 
Fathers,  or  those  who  lived  from  the  beginning  of  the  third 
to  the  end  of  the  sixth  century.  IV.  The  Schoolmen,  or 
the  fathers  and  eminent  divines  who  flourished  during  the 
middle  ages,  and  to  the  period  of  the  reformation. 

§  2.     The  true  value  of  the  apostolical  fathers. 

In  order  to  understand  the  value  to  be  attached  to  the  tes- 
timony of  these  apostolic  fathers,  we  must  carefully  remem- 
ber the  positions  they  are  brought  to  prove.  Prelatists  then 
affirm,  that  it  is  evident  to  all  men  diligently  reading  these 
ancient  authors,  that  there  were,  ever  since  the  apostles'  days, 
three  orders  of  ministers  in  the  church  —  prelates,  presbyters, 

1)   Clarke's  Succ.  of  Sacred  Lit-  2)    Archbp.    Wake's    Ap.    Fath, 

erat.  vol.  i.  p.  90.  Prel.  Disc. 


CHAP.  II.]      VALUE    OF    THE    APOSTOLICAL    FATHERS.  337 

and  deacons,  and  that  these  three  are,  by  divine  right,  sepa- 
rate and  distinct,  so  that  the  one  cannot  perform  the  functions 
of  the  other.  It  must,  therefore,  be  proved  from  these  fathers, 
that  the  pastors  of  several  congregations,  in  each  of  which  all 
the  parts  of  the  ordinary  worship  of  God,  were  carried  on, 
and  the  sacraments  administered,  ought  to  be  subject  to  one 
prelate,  who  should  be  the  governor  of  these  pastors  and 
these  several  congregations,  to  whom  belong  exclusively 
the  powers  of  confirmation,  ordination,  excommunication, 
and  jurisdiction  ;  that  there  should  be,  under  this  order,  two 
other  orders  of  ministers,  the  presbyters,  and  deacons  ;  that 
this  system  notoriously  prevailed  in  the  catholic  church, 
during  their  time,  up  to  the  very  age  of  Christ  and  his  apos- 
tles ;  and,  that  all  these  fathers  unanimously  teach  this  sys- 
tem, under  the  specific  aspect  of  doctrines  and  practices, 
which,  in  their  time,  were  universally  believed  to  have  de- 
scended from  the  apostles. 1 

Now,  to  give  their  testimony  to  these  facts,  these  fathers,  it 
must  be  allowed,  were  perfectly  competent.  They  are  most  wor- 
thy and  credible  witnesses.  They  lived  in  the  age  of  the  apos- 
tles; were,  some  of  them,  their  contemporaries;  were  instruct- 
ed by  them  in  the  faith;  are  mentioned  in  the  inspired  writ- 
ings ;  and  were,  perhaps,  appointed  to  their  respective  churches 
at  Rome,  Antioch,  and  Smyrna,  during  the  lives  of  the  apos- 
tles. They  were  men  of  high  dignity  and  authority  in  their 
own  times.  They  were  eminent  for  their  piety,  courage,  and 
constancy.  They  were  endowed,  probably,  with  many  ex- 
traordinary gifts  and  graces.  They  sealed  their  testimony  lo 
the  truth  by  their  death.  And  their  writings  were  afterwards 
publicly  read  in  the  churches.2  But  not  only  are  these  fathers 
thus  fully  competent  to  give  testimony  to  the  positions  af- 
firmed, they  alone,  of  all  the  fathers,  are  thus  competent.  The 
demonstration  of  primitive  practice  must  be  deduced  from 
the  truly  primitive  fathers.  It  is  vain  to  heap  quotations 
from  the  writers  of  an  age,  when  the  controverted  policy  had 
been  established.  The  proof,  that  prelacy  existed  in  the 
latter  part  of  the  third,  in  the  fourth,  and  fifth  centuries,  can 
never  prove,  that  it  was  established  by  the  apostles,  and  that, 
as  such,  it  existed  from  the  beginning.  The  only  fact  to  be 
established  is,  that  this  prelacy  was  instituted  by  Christ  and 
his  apostles,  and  that,  as  such,  it  was  universally  received  by 
the  earliest  believers.     Now,  if  this  fact  can  be  substantiated, 

1)  See  Faber's  Diff.  of  Rom.  B.  2)  See  Archbp.  Wake's  Prel.Disc. 

i.  ch.  vi.  pp.  206,  228.  to  Ap.  Fath. 

43 


338  THE    HIGH    VALUE    ATTACHED  [BOOK.  II. 

or  made  clear  from  the  testimony  of  scripture,  and  of  the 
apostolical  and  primitive  fathers,  then  all  subsequent  testimo- 
ny is  superfluous ;  and  if  it  cannot,  then  all  such  testimony 
is  irrelevant  and  vain.1  The  ancient  testimony  is  the  only 
sufficient  evidence  in  the  case.  And  if  this  testimony  is,  to 
say  the  least,  ambiguous,  or  if,  to  say  the  truth,  it  is  clearly 
opposite,  as  a  whole,  to  the  exclusive  pretensions  of  the  pre- 
lacy, then  is  it  most  certainly  absurd  and  nugatory  to  seek, 
in  any  later  writers,  for  the  substantiation  of  these  prelatic 
claims  ;  since  the  only  point  to  be  decided  is,  not  the  teach- 
ing of  the  church  in  a  later  age,  but  in  the  days  of  the  apos- 
tles, and  their  immediate  successors. 

If  the  early  christians  recognised  this  prelatic  theory  of  the 
ministry  as  so  all-important  as  it  is  made  by  prelatists,  we 
may  certainly  expect  to  hear  them  clearly  inculcating  and 
defending  it.2  And  if  this  expectation  is  met  by  the  fact  of 
remarkable  and  admitted  silence,  both  in  scripture  and  the 
earliest  writers,  the  conclusion  is  inevitable,  that  no  such 
views  were  entertained. 

It  is  impertinent  to  ask  us  to  show,  in  the  apostolical 
fathers,  any  condemnation  of  prelacy,  in  terms,  since,  as  we 
believe,  the  system,  in  its  full  development,  was  as  much  un- 
known to  them  as  are  our  railways.  It  is  enough,  if,  by  their 
silence,  they  give  manifest  proof,  that  they  never  thought  of 
the  present  vaunted  system  of  diocesan  episcopacy;  and  that 
they  thus  condemn  it,  implicitly,  virtually,  and  consequen- 
tially, by  positively  attesting  to  the  existence  of  presbytery.3 

Besides,  the  writings  of  these  fathers,  are  the  only  writ- 
ings now  extant,  not  spurious,  which  we  have,  after  the  New 
Testament,  till  the  middle  of  the  second  century.  We  have, 
therefore,  no  other  witnesses  but  them  for  fifty  years,  at  least, 
after  the  death  of  the  last  of  the  apostles.  Whatever  could 
be  certainly  known,  therefore,  of  the  opinions  and  customs 
of  the  apostles,  must  have  been  known  to  them.  Whatever 
written  traditions  of  those  opinions  and  customs  of  the  apos- 
tles remain,  must  be  preserved  to  us  in  these  writings.  Later 
writers  could  have  no  personal  knowledge  of  these  things. 
Their  accounts,  therefore,  can,  at  best,  be  only  the  report  of 
the  reports  of  these  fathers,  concerning  what  was  the  case 
fifty  or  sixty  years  before.     Only  those  who  lived  at  the  very 

1)  See  Faber  on  the  Diff.  of  Rom.  3)  See  Professor  Ogilby  on  Lay 
B.  i.  ch.  i.  Baptism,  p.  73,  and  Goode's  Rule  of 

2)  Such  is  the  analogous   argu-  Faith,  vol.  ii.  pp.  29,  30,  Eng.  ed. 
ment  of  Mr.  Faber.    Diff.  of  Rom.  B. 

i.  ch.  ii.    (2)  p.  21. 


CHAP.  II.]       TO  THE  APOSTOLICAL  FATHERS.  339 

beginning  could  have  any  certainty,  that  any  given  opinion 
or  practice,  not  recorded  in  the  scriptures,  was  apostolic.  On 
their  report  the  next  successors  were  obliged  to  build  their 
faith.  On  the  report  of  these,  that  they  had  correctly  report- 
ed the  truth  of  such  apostolic  origin,  the  next  succeeding  age 
would  necessarily  depend.  And  thus,  while  there  might  be 
ultimately  an  infinite  number  of  witnesses,  they  would  all  be 
found  to  trace  back  their  evidence  to  these  first  testators.  If 
the  evidence  of  these  first  witnesses  was  written,  then  will 
all  subsequent  testimony  have  the  strength  due  to  it.  But,  if  it 
was  left  oral,  then  have  we  only  the  attenuated  thread  of  an  in- 
visible report,  as  the  foundation  of  our  confidence.  Now  on  this 
we  manifestly  cannot  rely.  For,  to  take  an  illustration,  what 
great  and  grievous  changes  took  place,  on  many  points,  and 
on  this  subject  of  church  discipline  and  polity,  in  the  church 
of  England,  within  fifty  years  after  the  reformation !  From 
Calvinistic,  in  doctrine,  it  had  become  Arminian,  and  from 
having  avowed  the  principle,  that  all  the  powers  of  the  min- 
istry belonged  equally  to  presbyters  and  bishops  ;  that  the 
latter  differed  from  the  former  only  in  ecclesiastical  dignity  ; 
and  that  all  the  churches  of  the  reformation  were  scripturally 
organized  ;  she  became  notorious  for  all  the  exclusiveness  and 
bigotry  of  her  Sandys  and  her  Laud. l  Even  now  is  it  a 
matter  of  fierce  controversy,  whether  the  articles  of  that  church 
are  Calvinistic,  Arminian,  Lutheran,  Melancthonian,  Popish, 
or,  finally,  whether  they  have  any  meaning  at  all  ;a  whether 
they  are  to  be  subscribed,  in  a  literal  and  grammatical  sense, 
or  in  what  is  termed  a  scriptural  sense,  or,  as  Paley  thinks, 
in  the  sense  of  the  imposer,  reasonably  interpreted,  or,  finally, 
with  a  consent  of  mere  acquiescence;3  and  whether  the 
church  can,  or  cannot,  recognise  as  christians,  ministers,  or 
churches,  those  connected  with  any  other  body  than  herself, 
the  Romish  apostacy,  and  some  other  similar  sects.4  All 
this  is  the  case  as  it  regards  formularies  written  and  printed, 
only  three  hundred  years  ago,  and  in  a  living  church.  And 
hence,  it  is  impossible,  in  any  reason,  to  make  opinions, 

1)  See  Letters  on  the  Fathers,  p.  Subscription,  by  the  Rev.  G.  N.  Wood- 
56,  and  Essays  on  the  Church.  house,  and  the  admirable  review  of  this 

2)  See  Goode's  Div.  Rule  of  and  tract  No.  90,  in  the  Westminster 
Faith,  vol.  i.  pp.  8,  9,  and  182.  Lond.  Review,  for  July,  1842,  in  which  these 
Chr.  Ob.  1841,  p.  764.  Oxf.  Tracts,  various  theories  of  subscription,  and 
No.  90.  Hooker's  Wks.  vol.  i.  pp.  17,  the  equally  discordant  theories  of  in- 
18.  Hanb.  ed.  Oxf.  Tr.  vol.  iv.  pp.  23  terpretation  are  fully  illustrated  by 
-36.  Burnet  on  39  Art.  p.  10.  Soames's  quotations  from  various  standard  au- 
Elizab.  Age,  p.  591.     Newman  on  Ro-  thors. 

man.  pp.  285,  302.  4)  See    Lect.    on    Apost.    Succ. 

3)  See  What  is  the  Meaning  of    Lect.  i.  and  notes. 


340  THE    TESTIMONY    TO    PRESBYTERY  [BOOK  II. 

or  practices,  which  were  prevalent  in  the  third  and  following 
centuries,  when  printing  was  utterly  unknown,  any  standard 
by  which  to  test  the  opinions  or  practices  of  the  apostolic 
age.  While,  therefore,  in  no  age,  are  we  to  receive  the  doc- 
trinal opinions  of  the  fathers,  as  the  rule  or  standard  of  faith ; 
it  is  plainly  impossible  to  receive  the  witness  of  any  age, 
as  to  the  probable  institutions  of  Christ  and  his  apostles,  ex- 
cept the  apostolic.1 

Thus  first  traditions  were  a  proof  alone, 
Could  we  be  certain  such  they  were  —  so  known ; 
But  since  some  flaws  in  long  descent  may  be, 
They  make  not  truth,  but  probability. 2 

§  4.     The  testimony  of  Clement  Romanus. 

Clement,  who  was  called  Romanus,  because  he  was  bishop 
of  Rome,  A.  D.  91  or  93,  and  who  is  supposed  to  be  the 
individual  referred  to  in  Phil.  4 :  3,  has  left  us  an  epistle  to 
the  Corinthians,  which  is  allowed  to  be  genuine.3  The 
object  of  this  epistle,  which  was  written  in  the  name  of  the 
whole  church  of  Rome,  was,  like  that  of  the  apostle  Paul  to 
the  same  church,  to  compose  some  dissensions  which  had 
taken  place  respecting  their  teachers  or  governors.4  This 
object  Clement  himself  explicitly  avows.5  He  also  makes 
known,  with  equal  clearness,  that  the  Corinthian  church  had 
been  '  led  into  a  sedition  against  its  presbyters,'  so  that  its 
teachers  or  governors  were  presbyters.6  There  were  also,  as 
it  appears,  several  of  these  teachers  or  governors  in  the  Corin- 
thian church;7  and  therefore,  even  were  they  not  called 
presbyters,  we  must  conclude  that  they  certainly  were  not 
prelates,  since  there  can  only  be  one  prelate  in  one  diocese. 
This  is  plain  also  from  what  Clement  says,8  when  he  requires 
them  to  be  in  subjection  to  their  rulers,  wis  ^yov/uspoic,  and 
to  give  the   honor  that  was   due  to  their  presbyters.    That 

1)  See  Daille,  pp.  2,  5,  6,  169.  7)- In  §   47,  these   ministers  are 

2)  Dryden,  Rel.  Laid,  vol.  i.  405.  spoken  of  in   the  plural,  as  '  presby- 

3)  'The  only  genuine  work  of  ters.'  So  also, in  §  21,  'let  us  respect 
any  uninspired  christian  writer,  of  the  the  presbyters,'  tw;  frpirSwrtpovc,  prce- 
first  century,  now  extant.'  Riddle's  positos  nostros.'  See  Cotelerius,  torn. 
Eccl.  Chron.  Lond.  1840,  p.  13,  by  an  i.  p.  161.  Here,  again,  Archb.  Wake 
Episcopalian.  hides  the  sense,  by  rendering  it,  'the 

4)  Wake's  Prel.  Disc.  §  13,  p.  61.  aged.'  So  also,  in  §  44,  'those  pres- 
Clarke's  Sacred  Lit.  vol.  i.  p.  91  byters,'  'some   who    lived  reputably 

5)  1  Ep.  to  Corinth.  §  47.  amongst  you  from  the  ministry.'     So 

6)  See  §  47.     Also,  §  57,  and  §  3,  also,  in  §  57. 
where  Archb.  Wake  translates  pres-  8)  In  §  1. 
byters, '  the  aged.' 


CHAP.  II.]  OF    CLEMENT    ROMANUS.  341 

presbyters  are  here  spoken  of  as  the  only  ministers  among 
them,  and  as  rulers,  is  evident  from  the  fact,  that  archbishop 
Wake,  in  order  to  obviate  the  necessary  conclusion,  was 
driven  to  the  most  disingenuous  artifice  of  translating  the 
term  «  presbyters '  — '  the  aged:  The  same  designed  Jesuitry 
is  pursued  in  section  third,  where  Clement  illustrates  the  evil 
condition  of  the  church  by  the  fact,  that  the  young  men  lifted 
themselves  up  against  their  presbyters,  rovg  ngso^vrsgovc,  which 
farther  confirms  our  position.  To  the  same  purpose  is  the 
distinct  testimony  given  by  Clement,  in  section  forty-two. 
Speaking  of  the  apostles,  he  says,  'for  having  received  their 
command,  and  being  thoroughly  assured  by  the  resurrection 
of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  and  convinced  by  the  word  of 
God,  with  the  fullness  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  they  went  abroad 
publishing  that  the  kingdom  of  God  was  at  hand.  And  thus, 
preaching  through  countries  and  cities,  they  appointed  the 
first  fruits  of  their  conversion  to  be  bishops  and  deacons  over 
such  as  should  afterwards  believe,  having  first  proved  them 
by  the  Spirit.  Nor  was  this  any  new  thing,  seeing  that  long 
before  it  was  written  concerning  bishops  and  deacons.  For 
thas  saith  the  scripture,  in  a  certain  place,  I  will  appoint  their 
overseers  in  righteousness,  and  their  deacons  in  faith.'1 

He  gives  a  similar  testimony,  in  section  forty-four,  where 
he  says,  that  '  the  apostle  foreknew,  through  our  Lord  Jesus 
Christ,  that  contentions  would  arise  about  the  name  of  epis- 
copacy, and  therefore  being  endued  with  a  perfect  foreknowl- 
edge, appointed  the  aforesaid  officers,  namely,  bishops  and 
deacons,  and  left  the  manner  of  their  succession  described, 
that  so,  when  they  died,  other  approved  men  might  succeed 
them  and  perform  their  office.'2  Now  we  have  here  a  formal 
account  of  the  officers  appointed  by  the  apostles  to  succeed 
them,  in  the  various  churches  they  established,  and  these  are 
enumerated,  as  in  scripture,  under  the  two  heads  of  bishops 
or  presbyters,  and  deacons.  So  that,  according  to  the  testimony 
of  Clement,  there  are  only  two  classes  of  officers  permanently 
established  in  the  church.  The  bishops,  he  is  so  far  from 
distinguishing  from  presbyters,  as  prelatists  do,  that  on  the 

1)  Archb.  Wake  is  here  guilty  of  prcescriptum.'1  Hammond, '  seriem  sue- 
most  unpardonable  foul  play  and  cessionis,  cataloguing  Dr.  Barrow,  '  The 
treachery.  In  order,  if  possible  to  apostles  having  constituted  the  afore- 
make  out  a  reference  to  more  orders  said,  (bishops  and  deacons,)  they  with- 
than  one,  he  translates  the  original  al  gave  them  further  charge,  that,  if 
term,  JWsvsvc,  'Deaconos,'  (Cotele-  they  should  die,  other  approved  men 
rius,  torn.  i.  p.  171,)  in  two  places  successively  should^ receive  the  office.' 
ministers,  and  once  deacons.  See  Barrington's  Wks.  vol.  ii  pp-  103, 

2)  Usher  translates  it,  '  ordinem  164. 


342  THE  TESTIMONY  TO  PRESBYTERY       [BOOK  II. 

contrary,  he  supposes  the  presbyters  to  have  been  vested 
with  the  episcopal  office,  and  blames  the  church  of  Corinth, 
for  having  cast  these  presbyters,  (ano  rr/g  etthjxotti];,)  out  of 
their  bishoprics,  or  their  episcopal  office.1  Episcopacv, 
therefore,  as  a  superior  order  to  that  of  presbyters,  never 
entered  into  the  mind  of  Clement,  since  he  attaches  the 
episcopal  function  to  the  order  of  presbyters.2 

Mr.  Faber,  after  adducing  this  testimony  of  Clement,  has 
these  observations  : 3  '  Here,  we  may  observe  no  more  than 
two  orders  are  specified,  the  word  bishops  being  plainly  used 
as  equipollent  to  the  word  presbyters ;  and  all  possibility  of 
misapprehension  is  avoided  by  the  circumstance  of  Clement's 
affirmation,  that  the  appointment  of  these  two  orders  was 
foretold,  in  a  prophecy  which  announced  the  appointment  of 
exactly  two  descriptions  of  spiritual  officers.  '  I  will  appoint 
their  overseers  in  righteousness,  and  their  ministers  in  faith.' 
In  point  of  evidence  it  matters  nothing,  whether  Clement 
applied  the  prophecy  itself  correctly  or  incorrectly.  Under 
the  simple  aspect  of  testimony  to  a  fact,  had  the  church,  in 
Clement's  time,  universally  understood  and  believed  that 
three  distinct  orders  of  clergy  had  been  appointed,  that  father 
could  never  have  asserted  such  a  form  of  ecclesiastical  polity, 
to  be  foretold  in  a  prophecy  which  announced  the  appoint- 
ment of  no  more  than  two  sorts  of  officers,  described  as  being 
overseers  and  ministers.  Hence,  Clement  seems  to  confirm 
the  statement  of  Jerome,  that  '  the  creation  of  superintending 
bishops  did  not  introduce  a  third  and  additional  order  into 
the  church.'  To  the  same  effect  writes  Stillingfleet,4  and 
also  Lord  Barrington,  who  says,  '  bishops,  with  St.  Clement, 
are  always  the  same  with  elders  or  presbyters,  as  any  one 
must  see,  if  they  read  the  epistle,  or,  if  they  can  doubt  of  it, 
must  be  fully  convinced  by  the  notes  of  the  learned  Mr. 
Burton  upon  it.'5  Bishop  Croft,  in  his  -True  State  of  the 
Primitive  Church,  thus  speaks  :6  'now  in  this  epistle,  Clement 
particularly  sets  forth  the  constitution  of  the  church,  by  the 

1)  See  also  §  44,47,  and  57.  Haeres.  lib.  iv.   c.  xliv.  when  Irenaeus 

2)  And  in  proving  that  God  de-  evidently  understood  no  other  bishops 
signed  that,  in  the  New  Testament  than  presbyters  to  be  intended  by  the 
church,  there  should  be    only  bishops  prophet. 

and    deacons,    from   the    passage    in  3)  The    Ancient  Vallenses    and 

Isaiah,  Clement  is    followed  by  Iren-  Albigenses,  pp.  558,  559. 

aeus,  who  says,   '  such  presbyters  the  4)  Iren.  p.  311. 

church   nourishes,   concerning  whom  5)  Miscellanea   Sacra,  vol.   ii.  p. 

the  prophet   speaks,  and   I  will  give  154,  ed.  1770.  Wks.  vol.  ii.  pp.  158,163, 

your  princes  in  peace,  and  your  bish-  164. 

ops,(episcopos,)  in  righteousness.' Adv.  6)  Scott's  Coll.  of  Tr.  vol.  vii.  p. 

298. 


CHAP.  II.]  OF  CLEMENT  ROMANUS.  343 

apostles,  and  what  ministers  they  ordained  in  the  church ;  to 
wit,  bishops  and  deacons,  he  names  no  other;  which  seems 
to  me  as  full  an  evidence  as  can  be  that  there  were  no  other 
orders  in  the  church  in  those  days,  but  those  two ;  and  yet 
we  are  sure  there  were  then  presbyters  in  the  church ;  for 
Peter  and  John  call  themselves  presbyters,  and  St.  Peter  calls 
them  presbyters  to  whom  he  wrote  his  epistle;  so  that  if  there 
were  but  two  orders,  to  wit,  bishops  and  deacons,  presbyters 
must  be  one  and  the  same  with  bishops  or  with  deacons;  not 
with  deacons,  therefore,  one  and  the  same  with  bishops  ;  one 
order  called  by  two  names  promiscuously  in  scripture,  as 
hath  been  showed  before.' 

Dr.  Hammond  concurs  in  the  same  judgment.  '  Clement's 
presbyters,'  says  he,  'were  all  bishops;  there  was  no  middle 
order  of  presbyters,'  that  is  prelatical  presbyters,  '  at  lhat 
time.'1  Dr.  Hawkins,  in  his  recent  discourse  on  the  Apos- 
tolical Succession,  as  also  in  his  Bampton  Lectures,  is 
constrained  to  admit,  that  'the  church  of  Corinth,  whatever 
may  have  been  the  cause,  appears,  as  I  conceive,  from  the 
epistle  of  Clement,  not  to  have  had  its  bishop,  as  well  as  its 
presbyters  and  deacons.'2  Mr.  Conybeare,  also,  in  his 
Bampton  Lectures,  admits  as  much.3  Dr.  Nolan,  too,  most 
fully  corroborates  the  opinions  expressed.4  '  So  that,'  adds 
Lord  King,5  '  there  were  only  the  two  orders  of  bishops  and 
deacons,  instituted  by  the  apostles.  And,  if  they  ordained 
but  those  two,  I  think  no  one  had  ever  a  commission  to  add 
a  third,  or  to  split  one  into  two,  as  must  be  done,  if  we  sepa- 
rate the  order  of  presbyters,  from  the  order  of  bishops.' 

In  the  judgment,  therefore,  of  the  most  competent  episco- 
palian writers,  the  teachers  or  governors,  referred  to  by 
Clement,  were,  indiscriminately,  called  bishops  or  presbyters, 
and  were  of  one  order  only.  It  is,  however,  objected  to  this 
conclusion,  that,  in  section  fortieth,  Clement  recognises  a 
threefold  order,  when,  in  illustration  of  the  necessity  of 
subordination  and  obedience  in  the  church,  he  refers  to  the 
threefold  ministry  of  the  Jewish  dispensation,  saying,  'for 
the  chief  priest  has  his  proper  services ;  and  to  the  priests,  their 
proper  place  is  appointed;  and  to  the  levites  appertain  their 
proper  ministries;    and   the  layman  is  confined  within  the 

1)  Vind.  of  the  Dissert,  ch.  iii.§l.  says,  'which  could  have  advanced  the 
See  his  testimonies  fully  handled,  in  interest  of  any  party,  or  have  exalted 
Baxter,  on  Episcop.  pp.  100,  103,  the  pretensions  of'any  order  in  the 
104,   106.  church.' 

2)  Lond.  1842,  p.  5.  Bampton's  4)  Cathol.  Char,  of  Christ,  p.  236. 
Lect.  p.  174.  5)  Primitive  Christ. part  i.pp.  69, 

3)  P.  54.   '  There  is  nothing,'  he  70.  Lond.  1691. 


344  THE    TESTIMONY    TO    PRESBYTERY  [BOOK  II. 

bounds  of  what  is  commanded  to  laymen.'  But,  as  Clement 
was  not  inspired,  we  must  be  permitted  to  remark,  that  the 
tenor  of  the  whole  paragraph  is  ceremonial,  legal,  and  Jewish, 
and  either  could  have  no  positive  reference  to  the  New  Testa- 
ment, or  a  false  one  altogether.1  Clement,  however,  designed, 
we  think,  to  institute  no  parallel  whatever  between  the  orders 
of  the  Jewish  and  the  christian  churches,  since  he  takes  a 
similar  illustration  from  the  army,  and  for  the  same  purpose, 
when  he  enumerates  several  orders  of  officers.2  He  does 
not  name  bishops,  presbyters,  and  deacons,  as  analogous  to 
the  high  priest,  priest,  and  levite.  "When  he  does  purposely 
allude  to  the  christian  ministry,  it  is,  as  has  been  seen,  under 
the  term  bishop  or  presbyter.  Neither  does  he  any  where, 
in  all  the  epistle,  in  any  way,  allude  to  any  superior  officer  or 
prelate,  in  the  church  of  Corinth.  His  only  object  was  to 
show,  that,  as  there  was  an  order  in  the  ancient,  so  should 
there  be  an  order  preserved  in  the  christian  church,  and  every 
one  in  their  place,  perform  their  respective  duties;  for, 'in 
other  passages  of  the  letter,  we  rather  meet  with  the  free 
spirit  of  the  original  presbyterian  constitution  of  the  church.'3 
Besides,  it  has  been  fully  shown,  that  the  high  priest  was  not 
an  order  of  ministry  distinct  from  priests,  but  was,  in  all 
cases,  himself  a  priest ;  that  he  was  the  representative  of  the 
entire  church  ;  and  that  he  is  now  perpetuated  in  Christ,  who 
is  'the  High  Priest  of  our  profession  ;'  while  the  priests  and 
levites  would  find  their  counterpart  in  our  presbyters  and 
deacons.'4  The  analogy,  therefore,  would  still  favor  the  pres- 
byterian and  utterly  contradict  the  prelatic  system.  And 
then,  too,  even  had  there  been  some  president  at  Corinth, 
resembling  the  high  priest,  he  would  not  have  been  a  dio- 
cesan, but  only  a  parochial  bishop,  and  therefore  not  a  prelate, 
but  a  presbyter.'5 

But  our  interpretation  of  this  writer  will  be  made  more 
evidently  correct,  by  attending  to  the  remedy  he  proposes  for 
the  existing  dissensions.  And  here  we  appeal  to  every  candid 
mind,  whether,  under  the  circumstances  of  the  case,  every 
prelate,  writing  to  the  churches,  would  not  have  enjoined  upon 
the  presbyters  and  people,  subjection  to  the  divinely  appointed 

1)  See  Letters  on  the  Fathers,  p.  4)  See  B.  i.ch.xiii.  §  1. 

21.    '  We  cannot  for  a  moment  think  5)  On    this    objection,    see    Dr. 

of  any  such  confusion  of  the  Old  and  Miller,  on  the  Ministry,  8vo.  ed.  p.  85. 

New  Testament  ideas,  in  a  disciple  of  Boyse's    Anct.    Episcop.   p.   42,   &c. 

St.  Paul.'    Neander's  Hist,  of  the  Chr.  Henderson's  Review  and  Consid.  Ed- 

Rel.  vol.  i.  p.  199.  inb.  1706.  4to.  pp.  378,  379.      Powell 

2)  §  37.  Apost.    Succ.  2d.   ed.  pp.  304,  305. 

3)  Neander's  Hist,    of  the    Chr. 
Rel.  vol.  i.p.  199. 


CHAP.  II.]  OP  CLEMENT  ROMANUS.  345 

authority  and  jurisdiction  of  their  prelate ;  and  whether,  the 
system  of  prelacy  being  then  known,  Clement  would  not 
also  have  done  the  same  ;  or,  if  they  had  no  prelate,  have 
recommended  the  immediate  appointment  of  such  a  head. 
But  Clement  did  neither  the  one  nor  the  other.  He  assumes 
that  the  church  was  perfectly  organized,  and  had  all  the 
divinely  instituted  officers.  He  therefore  requires  their 
mutual  subjection  to  God,  and  not  to  him,  or  to  any  prelate.1 
He  enjoins,  also,  their  cooperation  with  those  whose  aim  and 
object  was  the  preservation  of  peace  and  harmony,' 2  and  who 
were  characterized  by  humility.3  He  calls  upon  them  to 
be  subject,  not  to  any  prelate,  but  to  one  another.4  He 
beseeches  them  to  carry  their  difficulties  in  prayer  to 
God;5  to  exercise  love  and  charity;0  to  remember  heaven, 
their  common  and  heavenly  home ; 7  to  examine  the  scrip- 
tures, and  thus  ascertain  their  errors  ;8  and,  by  a  voluntary 
sacrifice  and  yielding,  to  compromise  their  difficulties  and 
restore  peace  to  their  bleeding  Zion.9 

From  this  epistle  of  Clement,  therefore,  six  things  are 
evident.  First,  that  in  his  time,  and  in  both  the  churches  of 
Corinth  and  Rome,  the  only  officers  known  to  the  churches 
were  bishops,  or  presbyters,  and  deacons ;  secondly,  that  while 
Clement  only  mentions  these  two  classes  of  officers  as  having 
been  instituted  by  Christ  and  his  apostles,  he  calls  the  office 
of  the  presbyters  by  the  name  of  episcopacy ;  thirdly,  that  this 
was  not  only  the  order  of  the  churches  of  Rome  and  Corinth, 
but  that  pursued  every  where,  in  all  the  churches  planted  by 
the  apostles,  so  that,  as  Luke  says,  they  '  ordained  presbyters 
in  every  city ;'  fourthly,  that  throughout  the  whole  epistle 
there  is  no  allusion  to  the  possibility,  or  the  fact,  of  any  officer 
superior  to  presbyters  or  bishops,  so  that,  as  Stillingfleet  says, 
'  they  that  can  find  any  one  single  bishop  at  Corinth,  when 
Clement  wrote  his  epistle  to  them,  must  have  better  eyes  and 
judgment  than  the  deservedly  admired  Grotius,'  &c. ; 10  fifthly, 
that  from  several  passages  it  appears  that  these  presbyter- 
bishops  had  the  charge  of  only  one  christian  community,  who 
could  unite  together  in  all  acts  of  worship  and  service,  and 
by  whom  their  ministers  were  elected  to  their  office  so  that 
every  region  and  country  village  had  their  own  bishops  and 

1)  See  Sections  14  and  56.  '  Sub-  6)  §  49. 
mit  not  unto  us,  butto  the  will  of  God.'  7)  §  51. 

2)  See  Sections  15  and  16.  8)  \  53. 

3)  $  17.  9)  §  55. 

4)  §  38.  10)  Iren.  p.  279. 

5)  §  48. 

44 


346  THE  TESTIMONY  TO  PRESBYTERY      [BOOK  II. 

deacons  ;x  and,  sixthly,  that  the  succession,  established  by  the 
express  order  and  appointment  of  these  apostles,  was  presby- 
terian,  and  not  prelatical. 

The  single  testimony,  therefore,  of  this  most  ancient  of  all 
the  fathers,  in  this  most  authentic  epistle,  written  by  him  as  a 
bishop  to  a  divided  and  distracted  church ;  for  the  very 
purpose  of  pointing  out  the  true  order  and  constitution  of  the 
church,  according  to  the  apostolic  model ;  and  in  which  he 
identifies  presbyters  with  bishops,  in  name,  office,  and  powers, 
as  the  successors  of  the  apostles ;  is  of  itself  sufficient  to  test 
the  correctness  of  our  conclusion,  as  to  the  true  model  of  the 
primitive  and  scriptural  churches,  and  for  ever  to  blast  the 
divine  right  of  prelacy.2 

§  4.     The  testimony  of  Hennas  and  Polycarp. 

Hermas,  who  is  supposed  to  be  referred  to  in  Rom.  16  :  14, 
lived  A.  D.  100.  He  left  behind  him  a  work,  entitled  Pastor, 
written  in  Greek,  but  remaining  only  in  a  Latin  version.  In 
this  he  speaks  of  'the  elders/  (or  presbyters,)  'who  preside 
over  the  church,'  and  again,  of  '  bishops,  that  is,  presidents  of 
the  churches.  Then  such  as  have  been  set  over  inferior  min- 
istries, and  have  protected  the  poor  and  the  widows,'  &c.  In 
another  passage  he  speaks  of  'apostles,  bishops,  doctors,  and 
ministers,  who,  through  the  mercy  of  God,  have  come  into 
this  building  of  Christ,  and  have  managed  the  episcopal 
office,  and  have  taught  and  have  ministered  holily  and  mod- 
estly to  the  elect  of  God  who  have  fallen  asleep.'  3 

From  a  comparison  of  these  extracts,  says  Dr.  Miller,4  it 
will  appear  that  Hermas  considered  bishops  and  elders  as 
different  titles  for  the  same  office.  He  speaks  of  elders  as 
presiding  over  the  church  of  Home ;  he  represents  a  plurality 
of  elders  as  having  this  presidency  at  the  same  time  ;  having 

1)  §  37,  and  all  the  later  sections.  Haven,  1767,  p.  124,  &c.  ;  Wilson's 
See  also  Baxter  on  Erase,  part  i.  Primit.  Govt,  of  the  Church,  pp.  4-6 ; 
and  part  ii.  p.  19,  &c.  Campbell's  Lect.  on  Eccl.  Hist.  p.  77, 

2)  On  the  testimony  of  Clement  3d.  ed.  This  testimony  is  very  fully 
Romanus,  see  Dr.  Miller  on  the  Min.  handled  in  Boyse's  Anct.  Episcopacy, 
p.  83,  &c,  2d  ed.;  Powell  on  Aposto.  pp.  32-65,  where  all  possible  objec- 
Succ.  p.  48  ;  The  Divine  Right  of  the  tions  are  met  and  answered;  Baxter 
Min. part  ii. pp.  104-106  ;  Corbet's  Re-  on  Episc.  part  ii,  p.  19,  &c. ;  Ayton's 
mains,  p.  114  ;  Schism,  p.  126 ;  Faber's  Orig.  Constit.  of  the  Church,  p.  490  ; 
Albigenses,  p.  55S  ;  King's  Primit.  Ch.  Jameson's  Fundamentals  of  the  Hier- 
pp.  68,  69,  &c;  Anderson's  Defence  of  archy,  pp.  192-198. 

Presb.  p.  181  ;  Stillingfleet's  Irenicum,  3)  Seethe   Shepherd  of  St.  Her- 

pp.  310,  311  ;  Potter  on  Church  Gov-  mas,  Vision  ii.  §  4,  andiii.§  5,  6.  Also 

ernment,  p.    257  ;    Plea    for    Presby-  Similitude  ix  .27  ;  See  the  passages  ful- 

tery.  Glasgow.  1840.  p.  252,  &c.  ;  ly  given  by  Dr.  Miller  on  the  Min.  p.  87. 
Welles's  Vind.  of  Presb.  Ordin.   New  4)  Dr.  Miller  on  the  Min.  p.  88. 


CHAP.  II.]        OF  HERMAS  AND  POLYCARP.  347 

used  the  word  bishops,  he  explains  it  as  meaning  those  who 
presided  over  the  churches;  and  immediately  alter  bishops, 
(without  mentioning  presbyters,)  he  proceeds  to  speak  of 
deacons,  that  is,  those  who  are  intrusted  with  the  protection  of 
the  poor  and  of  the  ividoivs.'' 

As  to  the  last  quotation,  it  must  either  be  interpreted  in 
accordance  with  the  preceding  one,  the  terms  bishop,  doctor, 
and  minister,  as  in  scripture,  being  applicable  to  the  one  gen- 
eral order  of  christian  ministers,  whom  Hermas  had  denomi- 
nated presbyters,  and  who  are  here  made  to  succeed  the 
apostles ;  or,  if  it  must  be  taken  literally,  then  it  recommends 
four  orders  of  the  ministry,  and  not  three,  and  these,  too,  such 
as  no  man  on  earth  can  find  or  distinguish.  It  is  apparent, 
that  to  all  these  officers,  Hermas  attributes  the  management  of 
the  episcopal  office,  and  the  power  of  the  keys,  and  therefore 
they  must  all  possess  the  same  powers  and  functions.  He 
makes  no  distinction  whatever  between  the  rulers  and  the 
teachers,  but  identifies  their  office.  And  hence  we  must 
conclude,  that,  in  the  time  of  Hermas,  presbyters  were  equally 
called  apostles,  that  is,  their  successors  in  the  ordinary  min- 
istry of  the  word,  bishops,  doctors,  and  ministers,  and  that  no 
other  officers  were  known  to  the  churches,  except  deacons, 
who  attended  to  the  wants  of  the  poor.  These  presbyters  or 
bishops,  it  is  further  evident,  constituted  a  college,  who  gov- 
erned,in  common,  the  church  of  some  single  city  or  parish, — 
'  the  presbyters  in  this  city  who  govern  the  church.' 1 

Polycarpwas  one  of  the  disciples  of  John,  and  bishop  of  Smyr- 
na, i  n  Asia,  A.D.  108.  There  is  preserved  but  one  of  his  epistles, 
which  was  addressed  to  the  Philippians.  St.  Paul,  in  writing 
to  this  church,  directs  his  epistle  '  to  the  bishops  and  deacons,' 
(Phil.  1 :  1,)  as  the  only  officers  in  the  church  at  that  time. 
That  these  were  only  presbyters  and  deacons,  and  that  no 
other  officer  or  order  was  then  existent  in  this  church,  we  have 
seen  admitted  by  archbishop  Potter.  2  Now,  in  a  similar 
strain,  Polycarp  introduces  his  epistle,  saying,  '  Polycarp,  and 
the  presbyters  that  are  with  him,  to  the  church  of  God  which 
is  at  Philippi.'  It  is  thus  directed  to  the  church  at  Philippi, 
and  not  to  any  superior  officer  or  prelate.  In  section  fifth,  he 
tells  them  to  abstain  from  all  the  evil  things  he  had  men- 
tioned, '  being  subject  to  the  presbyters  and  deacons,  as  unto 
God  and  Christ.' 3  Again,  in  section  sixth,  he  says,  '  and  let 
the  presbyters  be  compassionate  and  merciful  towards  all ; 

1 )  Lib.  i.  Vis.  2,  on  Hermas's  Tes-  2)  Potter  on  Ch.  Govt.  p.  107,  &c. 

timony;    See   Dr.   Miller  as    above;  3)  See  in  Cotelerii  Patres  Apost 

Boyse's  Anct.  Christ,  pp.  Ill,  113.  torn.  ii.  p.  188. 


348  POLYCARP  A  PRESBYTERIAN.  [BOOK  II. 

turning  them  from  their  errors ;  seeking  out  those  that  are 
weak ;  not  forgetting  the  widows,  the  fatherless,  and  the  poor ; 
abstaining  from  all  wrath,  respect  of  persons,  and  unrighteous 
judgment;  not  easy  to  believe  any  thing  against  any ;  nor 
severe  in  judgment,  knowing  that  we  are  all  debtors  in  point 
of  law.'  Polycarp,  it  will  be  observed,  uses  no  other  term 
than  presbyter  to  designate  the  ministerial  office.  He  does 
not  allude  to  bishops.  He  assigns  to  presbyters  all  ministe- 
rial authority.  And  he  testifies  that  as  presbyters  were  left  in 
this  church  by  apostolic  appointment,  so  did  presbyters  con- 
tinue to  exercise  there  all  apostolic  authority,  as  the  only 
ministerial  successors  of  the  apostles. 

Polycarp  was  himself  styled  by  Irenaeus  '  the  apostolical 
presbyter,'  and,  after  an  examination  of  his  epistle,  Dr.  Wilson 
declares,1  '  Not  a  word  have  we  yet  found,  nor  shall  we  in 
this  letter  discover  any  thing,  that  bears  even  the  semblance 
of  a  proof  of  any  diversity  of  grade  in  the  ordinary  preaching 
office,  the  possessor  of  which  was  as  yet  indiscriminately 
called  bishop  and  presbyter.'  The  admission  of  the  judicial 
authority  of  these  associated  presbyters  over  their  co-presbyter 
Valens,  is  not  merely  a  renunciation  of  all  authority  on  the 
part  of  Polycarp  himself,  but  a  proof  also  that  the  cognizance 
of  such  causes,  and  the  exercise  of  all  ecclesiastical  discipline, 
lay,  not  in  the  hands  of  any  prelate,  but  of  the  presbytery  of 
the  church.  His  petition,  that  Valens  should  not  be  treated 
as  an  enemy,  is  addressed  to  the  presbyters,  as  such,  and  is 
proof  positive  that  power  was  vested  in  the  hands  of  the  pres- 
bytery. According  to  Polycarp,  therefore,  every  presbyter 
was  a  bishop ;  was  by  his  commission  equally  set  over  and 
bound  to  feed  and  govern  the  flock ;  and  was,  therefore,  apostol- 
ical, or  a  successor  to  the  ordinary  ministerial  office  possessed 
by  the  apostles.  Polycarp,  though  called  a  prelate,  was  him- 
self a  presbyter-bishop.  He  had  charge  of  one  single  church, 
which  he  ruled,  and  governed,  and  taught,  and  was  thus  as 
different  from  a  modern  diocesan  prelate,  as  any  presbyterian 
bishop  who  is  the  pastor  of  a  city  church.2 

1)  Primit.  Govt,  of  the  Ch.  p.  8  ;  bytery,p.256  ;  Welles's  Vind.  of  Presb. 
See  also  pp.  10,  11.  Ord.  p.  12S  ;  Dr.  Wilson's  Prim.  Govt. 

2)  On  this  testimony  see  Dr.  Mil-  of  the  Ch.  pp.  7-12. 
ler  on  the  Min.  p.  88  ;  Plea  for  Pres- 


CHAP.  II.]  THE    TESTIMONY    OF    IGNATIUS.  349 


§6.   The  testimony  of  Ignatius ;  even  his  smaller  epistles  are 
interpolated,  especially  on  the  subject  of  the  ministry. 

Ignatius,  bishop  of  Antioch,  is  placed  in  the  year  A.  D. 
107,  and  was  also  one  of  the  apostolic  fathers.  There  are 
seven  epistles  attributed  to  him,  called  the  smaller,  to  distin- 
guish them  from  eight  others,  which  are  called  the  larger. 
The  larger  epistles  are  now  universally  rejected  as  spurious, 
and  the  forgeries  of  a  later  age.  The  smaller  epistles  are, 
however,  as  universally  received,  as  substantially  those  of 
Ignatius,  though  there  are  not  wanting  those  who  think  it 
altogether  incredible,  that,  at  that  age,  a  man  on  his  journey 
to  Rome,  and  in  the  company  of  soldiers,  could  have  found 
opportunity  to  compose  and  forward  these  writings.1  These 
epistles  are  depended  on  by  prelatists  as  demonstrative  of 
their  views  on  the  subject  of  church  government,  and  as  in 
themselves  abundantly  sufficient  to  overthrow  all  the  preten- 
sions of  presbytery  to  apostolical  or  primitive  institution. 

We  will,  therefore,  more  fully  consider  the  testimony  of 
this  author.  And  in  doing  so,  we  will,  in  the  first  place,  show, 
that  even  these  smaller  epistles  are  corrupted  and  interpola- 
ted, and  are  not,  therefore,  altogether  genuine.  This  is  the 
opinion  of  the  large  body  of  the  learned  of  all  non-episco- 
pal denominations ;  and  also  of  many  episcopalian  writers  of 
eminence  and  impartiality.  We  do  not  design  to  enter  into 
this  controversy.2  We  undertake,  however,  to  deny  that  even 
the  smaller  epistles  ascribed  to  Ignatius,  are  thoroughly  gen- 
uine, or  so  free  of  forgeries  as  to  contain  no  chaff  mingled 
with  the  wheat.  There  is  no  certainty  that  they  have  not 
been  so  corrupted.  All  the  copies  which  existed  previous  to 
the  publication  of  the  old  latin  version  of  Usher,  were  man- 
ifestly corrupted,  since  they  differed  from  each  other,  and 
from  the  quotations  made  from  them  by  the  earlier  fathers.3 

1 )  Salmasius,  Blondel,and  Daille,  Repert.  1833,  p.  354,  and  for  1834,  p. 
regard  them  as  spurious.  Stillingfleet,  9.  Henderson's  Review  and  Consid- 
in  Iren,  p.  298,  advances  the  above  eration,  Edinb.  1706,  4to.  p.  332,  &c. 
view.  Plea  for  Presbytery,  1840,  p.  93,  &c. 

2)  The  reader  is  referred  to  Jame-  and  also  p.  258.  Welles's  Vindication 
son's  Fundamentals  of  the  Hierarchy,  of  Presb.  Ordn.  New  Haven,  1767,  p. 
part  ii.  §  1-6,  p.  109-164,  who  gives  121,  and  as  there  quoted,  Dr.  Chaun- 
a  full  view  of  the  history,  and  enters  cey's  Dudleian  Lect.  Dr.  Wilson, 
into  the  merits  of  the  controversy.  Primit.  Govt,  of  the  Ch.  p.  7,  and  $  vi. 
The  reader  is  also  referred  to  Dr.  Miller,  pp.  45-60.  Chevalier's  Translations 
on  the  Min.  pp.  90-92,  329.  Schism,  of  the  early  Fathers,  Introd.  p.  xlvi.&c. 
pp.  128,  &c.  and  517.  The  Divine  3)  Archbp.  Wake's  Prel.  Disc,  to 
Right  of  the  Min.  part  ii.  p.  106-114  Polycarp's  Ep.  §  17,  IS,  p.  125. 

Bp.  Marsh's  Lect.  part  v.  p.  17.     Bib. 


350  THE    EPISTLES    OF    IGNATIUS  [BOOK  II. 

Forgeries  were,  we  know,  very  early  issued  in  the  name  of 
many  of  the  apostles,  and  apostolic  fathers,  as  of  Clement, 
Barnabas,  and  Ignatius  himself.  Even  the  first  epistle  of 
Clement  has  been  tampered  with, by  the  insertion  of  incredi- 
ble matter.1  The  relation  of  the  martyrdom  of  Polycarp  has 
also,  as  is  admitted,  been  interpolated,  by  the  insertion  of  a 
story  so  utterly  ridiculous  that  archbishop  Wake,  though  in- 
clined to  swallow  every  thing  claiming  to  belong  to  these 
writers,  actually  omits  the  passage,  although  he  allows  the 
original  '  is  so  well  attested  that  we  need  not  any  further  as- 
surance of  the  truth  of  it!!'2  As  to  the  idea  that  no  one 
would  then  corrupt  a  work  so  known  and  sacred,  it  is  alto- 
gether idle,  inasmuch  as  Ignatius  himself  speaks  of  those 
who,  at  that  very  time,  corrupted  the  sacred  writings.3 

And,  as  there  is  no  improbability  in  their  being  corrupted, 
so  it  is  a  fact  that  about  six  hundred  years  after  Christ  these 
epistles  were  altered  and  perverted.4  This  is  admitted,  both 
on  internal  and  external  grounds  of  evidence,  by  many  epis- 
copalians; and  also,  that  these  alterations  were  made  so  as  to 
render  these  epistles  more  conformable  to  the  views  of  pre- 
lacy on  the  very  points  now  in  controversy.  '  In  these  epistles,' 
says  the  London  Christian  Observer,5 '  we  have  the  same  order 
of  bishops,  priests,  and  deacons,  marshalled  with  unseasonable 
exactness,  and  repeated  with  importunate  anxiety.  There 
appear,  moreover,  so  many  symptoms  of  contrivance,  and 
such  studied  uniformity  of  expression,  that  these  composi- 
tions will  surely  not  be  alleged  by  any  capable  and  candid 
advocate  for  primitive  episcopacy,  without  great  hesitation; 
by  many  they  will  be  entirely  rejected.  I  do  not  mean  to 
insinuate  that  the  whole  of  these  epistles  is  a  forgery.  On 
the  contrary,  many  parts  of  them  afford  strong  internal  evi- 
dence of  their  own  genuineness;  but, with  respect  to  the  par- 
ticular passages  which  affect  the  present,  (the  episcopal,)  dis- 
pute, there  is  not  a  single  passage  which  I  would  venture  to 
allege.  The  language,  at  the  earliest,  is  that  of  the  fourth 
century.'  Mr.  Kiddle,  the  learned  author  of  the  Christian 
Antiquities,  after  quoting  some  of  the  expressions  of  Igna- 
tius, respecting  episcopacy,  says,  'expressions  of  this  kind 
have  been  reasonably  regarded  as  the  work  of  a  later  hand.  It 
is  impossible  to   attach  any  importance  to  any  separate  por- 

1)  As  e.  g.  the  story  of  Danaus  3)  Ep.  to  Philad.  §  8. 

and  Diree.     See  Jameson's  Fund,  of  4)  Wake's   Prel.  Disc,  to   Polyc 

Heir.  p.  114.  Ep.  §  17,  and  Usseri  Diss.  c.  vi. 

2)  Prel.  Disc,  to  the  Rel.  pp.  246,  5)  Vol.  ii.  p.  723. 
248,  249. 


CHAP.  II.]  ARE    INTERPOLATED.  351 

tions  of  these  epistles,  in  which  it  is  highly  probable  that 
spurious  clauses  have  been  artfully  mixed  up  with  the  genu- 
ine expressions  of  the  apostolical  father.'1  'Thus  we  see,' 
says  another  recent  and  able  episcopalian  author,  '  the  weight 
of  evidence  during  the  two  first  centuries,  is  against  the  three 
orders,  which  may  naturally  create  a  suspicion  that  these  pas- 
sages in  Ignatius,  which  refer  to  them,  are  interpolations  ;  for 
he  stands  alone  in  what  he  states,  during  the  first  two  centu- 
ries, and  not  only  alone,  but  opposed  by  the  strongest  author- 
ities, during  that  period.'2  '  Turning  to  the  early  ecclesiasti- 
cal writers,'  says  another  recent  episcopalian  reviewer,  '  we 
find  in  the  first  ages  a  general  agreement,  only  a  few  trifling 
errors  are  gradually  discernable.  Ignatius,  (if  his  epistles  be 
not  interpolated,)  assigns  more  supremacy  to  the  episcopal 
office,  than  did  the  apostles.'3  Dr.  Nolan  is  very  strong. 
Having  declared  that  the  prelatic  system  can  date  only  from 
the  time  of  Cyprian,  he  adds,4  '  In  the  effort  to  trace  its  pedi- 
gree to  an  earlier  date,  labor  is  exhausted,  and  ingenuity  tor- 
tured, to  wrest  every  ambiguous  phrase,  in  the  writers  prece- 
ding his  times,  in  justification  of  the  illusion,  with  which 
they  are  captivated.  Their  predecessors,  among  the  ancients, 
cut  out  a  shorter  road  for  themselves,  in  pursuing  the  same 
bootless  object.  Finding  how  very  reluctant  St.  Ignatius  and 
the  compilers  of  the  apostolical  constitutions,  however  full 
and  explicit  on  the  subject,  were,  in  delivering  any  thing 
which  made  in  their  favor;  they  accordingly  supplied  the  un- 
pardonable deficiency  of  their  evidence,  by  deliberately  in- 
serting in  their  writings  every  thing  which  was  requisite  to 
the  establishment  of  a  cause,  which  they  doubtless  regarded 
as  meritorious  and  godly.'  Neander  also  declares  that  these 
epistles  '  have  certainly  been  interpolated,  by  some  one  who 
was  prejudiced  in  favor  of  the  hierarchy.' 

But,  whether  this  be  the  case  or  not,  certain  it  is  that  these 
epistles,  as  they  now  are,  contain  manifest  errors,  and  even 
blasphemies,  which  must  materially  weaken  the  weight  of 
their  testimony,  if  they  do  not  prove  their  corruption  on  the 
same  grounds  upon  which  the  larger  epistles  are  rejected, 
and  some  things  attributed  to  Polycarp.5  These  epistles 
contain   many   wild   extravagances,  which    show    that    the 

1)  Christ.  Antiq.  p.  232.  4)   Cath.    Chnr.    of    Christ,     pp. 

2)  Letters  on  the  Fathers,  p.  67.       153,  154.     See  also  pp.  102,  173,  200- 

3)  The     Churchman's    Monthly    236. 

Rev.  Sep.  1842,  p.  633.  5)  Wake's   Prel.  Disc,  to    Polyc. 

Ep.  §  17, 18,  p.  155.     Usseri  Dissert,  c. 
10  and  11. 


352  IGNATIUS    IS    INTERPOLATED.  [BOOK  II* 

author  was  vain,  credulous,  and  superstitious ; x  many  foolish 
fancies,  as  chimerical  as  any  rabbinical  imaginations,2  and 
many  errors,  not  only  in  their  germ,  but  also  in  full  blow.3 
He  puts  the  bishop,  for  instance,  in  the  place  of  God,  which 
is  blasphemy,  and  to  be  held  in  reprobation.4  The  first 
ground  on  which  archbishop  Wake  thinks  these  epistles  gen- 
uine, is,  '  that  there  is  nothing  in  them  either  unworthy  of  the 
spirit  of  Ignatius,  or  the  character  antiquity  has  given  of 
them.'5  Now  there  is,  as  we  judge,  much  that  is  altogether 
unworthy  of  the  spirit  of  Ignatius,  supposing  him  to  have 
been  a  truly  enlightened  and  devoted  christian.  Of  this,  in 
addition  to  what  has  been  adduced,  we  refer  the  reader  to 
other  passages.6  In  one  place  he  teaches,  that  'if  anyone 
follows  him  that  makes  a  schism  in  the  church,  he  shall  not 
inherit  the  kingdom  of  God,'7  which  is  plainly  contrary  to 
the  teaching  of  Paul,8  and,  therefore,  false.  In  another  place 
he  tells  us,  that  '  whatsoever  he  (the  bishop)  shall  approve  of, 
that  is  also  pleasing  unto  God  ; '  9  and  '  he  that  honors  the 
bishop  shall  be  honored  of  God,  but  he  that  does  any  thing 
without  his  knowledge,  ministers  unto  the  devil,'  where  he 
ascribes  to  every  bishop  infallibility,  and  constitutes  him  a 
pope.  In  the  same  epistle  he  claims  this  attribute  for  him- 
self, in  a  style  of  the  most  vulgar  profanity,  '  my  soul  be  for 
yours,  .  .  .  wherefore  neither  shall  Jesus  Christ  be  ashamed 
of  you,'  and  '  I  will  be  thy  surety  in  all  things.'10  Nay,  he 
even  carries  his  presumption  so  far  as  actually  to  claim  inspi- 
ration, and  the  knowledge  of  heavenly  things,  saying,  '  can  I 
not  write  unto  you  heavenly  things,  .  .  .  for  I  am  not  bound 
in  every  respect,  but  can  be  able  to  know  heavenly  things, 
the  orders  of  angels,  their  constitutions,  principalities,  things 
visible,  and  things  invisible.'11 

So  that,  on  the  whole,  charity,  justice,  and  truth  require  us 
to  believe  that  these  epistles  have  been  grossly  corrupted. 
'  And  truly,'  we  may  well  say  with  bishop  Stilli ngfleet,12  'the 
story  of  Ignatius  does  not  seem  to  be  any  the  most  probable. 

1)  Sec  illustrations  in  Ep.  to  the  6)  Ep.  to  Eph.  §  6,  8,  13.     Ep.  to 
Eph.  §  9,  Ep.  to  Smyrn.  §  8,  9,  and  13.  Magnes.  §  2,  3,  6.     Ep.  to  Trail.  §  2, 

2)  See  e.  g.  Ep.  to  Eph.  $  6.     Ep.  7,  13.     Ep.  to  the  Rom.  §  4,  5. 
to  Trail.  $  5.     Ep.to  Eph.  §  19.  7)  Ep.  to  Philad.  §  3. 

3)  Ep.  to  Trail.  §  3.     Ep.  to  Eph.  8)  Ep.  to  the  Cor.  1st  and  2d,  and 
§  20.      Ep.   to    Trail.   §    13.      Ep.  to  Rom.  Ch.  14,  &c. 

Smyrna,  §  6.     See  all  given  in  Letters  9)  Ep.  to  Smyrn.  §  8,  9. 

on  the  Fathers,  p.  34,  &c.  10)  Ibid.  §  10,  and  Ep.  to  Polyc. 

4)  Ep.  to  Magnes,  $  2,  3,  and  6.    $  2. 

Ep.  to  Trail,  §  2,3,12.     Ep.  to  Philad.  '        11)  Ep.  to  Trail.     See  the  sense 

§  3,  7,  8,  9.     Ep.  to    Smyrna,  §    8,  9.  here  given  fully. 
Ep.  to  Polyc.  §  6.  12)  Iren.  p.  298. 

5)  Prel.  Disc.  §  9. 


CHAP.  II.]  IGNATIUS  NOT  FAVORABLE  TO  PRELACY.       353 

For  wherefore  should  Ignatius,  of  all  others,  be  brought  to 
Rome  to  suffer,  when  the  proconsuls  and  the  presides  pro- 
vinciarum  did  every  where,  in  time  of  persecution,  execute 
their  power,  in  punishing  of  christians  at  their  own  tribunals, 
without  sending  them  so  long  a  journey  to  Rome,  to  be  mar- 
tyred there  ?  And  how  came  Ignatius  to  make  so  many, 
and  such  strange  excursions,  as  he  did,  by  the  story,  if  the 
soldiers  that  were  his  guard  were  so  cruel  to  him,  as  he  com- 
plains they  were  ?  Now  all  these  uncertain  and  fabulous 
narrations,  as  to  persons,  then  arising  from  want  of  sufficient 
records  made  at  those  times,  make  it  more  evident,  how  incom- 
petent a  judge  antiquity  is,  to  the  certainty  of  things  done  in 
apostolical  times.'  There  is  no  way,  therefore,  left,  but  to 
sift  the  chaff  from  the  wheat,  by  casting  the  whole  into  the 
sieve  of  scripture,  and  throwing  away  all  but  what  it  authen- 
ticates as  pure  grain,  as  the  vile  dust  of  oral  and  popish  tra- 
ditions ;  or  else  at  once  surrender,  to  fallible  and  imperfect 
mortals,  those  gifts  of  reason  which  God  has  granted  to 
every  man.  This  is  the  rather  necessary,  because  there  are 
various  editions  of  these  epistles,  according  to  which  the 
sense  is  varied,  and  prelatists  are  careful  not  to  inform  their 
readers  what  version  they  follow. x 

§  8.   The  epistles  of  Ignatius,  corrupted  as  they  are,  do  not 
support  the  cause  of  prelacy. 

Even,  however,  if  we  take  these  epistles  as  they  are,  we 
are  prepared  to  show  that  they  do  not  support  the  cause  of 
diocesan  prelacy.2  It  is  true,  Ignatius  speaks  of  bishops, 
presbyters,  and  deacons.  But  he  nowhere  affirms  that  these 
are  the  three  orders  of  the  ministry.  He  merely  states,  that 
there  were  then  three  classes  of  officers,  who  were  thus  de- 
nominated. He  does  not,  therefore,  sustain  the  Prayer  Book, 
in  affirming,  that,  from  the  apostles'  days,  there  were  these 
three  orders  of  ministers,  bishops,  priests,  and  deacons.  And 
who,  and  what,  was  the  bishop,  as  described  in  these  epis- 
tles ?  Even  supposing  that  he  was  the  president,  ruler,  or 
moderator,  the  primus  episcopus,  the  elected  superintendent  of 
the  other  presbyters,  and  the  church,  what  then  ?  The  bish- 
op described  by  Ignatius,  was  certainly  as  different  from  a 
diocesan  prelate  as  any  two  officers  can  be.  The  Ignatian 
bishop  was  the  presiding  officer  of  one  single  congregation,3 

1)  Letters  on  the  Fathers,  p.  1S4.  3)  Ep.  ad   Smyrn.  $   8.     Ep.   ad 

2)  See  Jameson's  Fund,  of  Hier.  Ephes.  §  5.     Ep.  ad  Magnes.  §  7.  Ep 
P-  124.  ad  Philad.  §  2. 

!" 


354       IGNATIUS  NOT  FAVORABLE  TO  PRELACY.  *[bOOK  II. 

while  the  prelate  is  the  president  of  any  indefinite  number, 
but  certainly  not  of  one,  merely.  The  sacraments  were  not 
to  be  administered  but  in  the  presence  of  the  Ignatian  bishop,1 
while  within  the  diocese  of  the  modern  bishop  there  may 
be  any  number  of  altars,  and  the  sacraments  administered  in 
any  number  of  churches,  at  the  same  time.  Besides,  the  Ig- 
natian bishop  was  required  to  attend, personally,  to  the  wants 
of  all  the  poor  of  his  whole  diocese.-'  Make,  therefore,  what 
you  will  out  of  the  Ignatian  bishop ;  but  make  out  of  him  a 
diocesan  prelate  it  is  impossible  for  any  man  to  do. 

The  bishop  described  by  Ignatius  was  unquestionably  the 
pastor  of  a  single  church  or  congregation,  having  other  pres- 
byters associated  with  him  in  its  government  and  instruction. 
All  the  bishops  named  by  him  were  fixed  pastors  of  some 
particular  church;  Onesimus,  of  the  church  at  Ephesus;3 
Demas,  of  the  church  at  Magnesia;4  Polycarp,  of  the  church 
at  Smyrna;5  Polybius,  of  the  church  of  Tralles;6  and,  in 
like  manner,  the  bishops  of  the  churches  at  Philadelphia,  and 
at  Smyrna.7  The  duties  which  are  prescribed  to  the  bishop, 
also  prove  the  same  position,  beyond  all  controversy.  Thus, 
in  addressing  Polycarp,  he  says,8  '  Let  not  the  widows  be 
neglected ;  be  thou,  after  God,  their  guardian.  Let  your 
assemblies  be  more  full ;  inquire  into  all  by  name  ;  overlook 
not  the  men  and  maid  servants.'  The  bishop  is  represented 
as  offering  up  the  prayers,  and  conducting  the  worship,  of  the 
whole  church  ;9  as  often  meeting  his  assistants,  at  the  same 
time  and  place,  for  thanksgiving  and  praise;10  as  uniting 
with  every  one  of  his  congregation  in  breaking  one  loaf;11  as 
having  no  greater  number  of  assistants  than  would  be  re- 
quired by  the  labors  of  one  church  at  that  lime  ;12  as  manag- 
ing and  directing  all  meetings  ;13  as  one  without  whose  ad- 
vice the  people  of  his  charge  need  do  nothing,14  but  be  with 
him,  and  follow  him,  as  sheep,  and  run  with  him  to  the  same 
altar  and  temple  ;15  as  being  the  common  guardian  of  all  the 
widows,  and  inquiring  after  the  absentees  from  public  wor- 
ship, even  to  the  maid  and  men  servants.16     The  Ignatian 

1)  Ep.  ad     Smyrn.  §  8.     Ep.  ad  8)  Ep.  to  Polyc.  <§  4. 
Philad.  $  4.     Ep.  ad  Eph.  §  20.  9)  Ep.  to  Eph.  §  5. 

2)  Ep.  ad    Polycarp.  §4.  10)   Ibid,  §  13. 

3)  Ep.  to  Eph.  §  1.  11)  Ibid,  §  20. 

4)  Ep.  to  Magn.  §  1.  12)  Ep.  to  Magn.  §  2. 

5)  Ep.  to  Magn.  §  15,  and  Ep.  to  13)  Ibid,  §  6. 
Polyc.  Salutation.  14)  Ibid,  \  7. 

6)  Ep.  to  Trail.  §  1.  15)  Ibid,  $  7,  and  Ep.  to  Phil.  §  2, 

7)  Ep.   to    Philad.   §    1.     Ep.  to     and  §  4,  and  Ep.  to  Smyrn.  §  8. 
Smyrn.  §  8.  16)  Ep.  to  Polyc.  §  4. 


CHAP.  II.]      IGNATIUS    FAVORABLE    TO    PRESBYTERY.  355 

bishop  was  not,  therefore,  a  prelate,  but  a  parochial  or  pres- 
byterian  pastor,  having,  as  was  then  necessary  and  common, 
other  presbyters  associated  with  him  in  the  same  charge.1 

§  9.     The  epistles  of  Ignatius  are  favorable  to  the  cause  of 

presbytery. 

But,  more  than  this,  we  are  prepared  to  go  further,  and  to 
assert,  that  these  epistles  of  Ignatius  are  favorable  to  the 
cause  of  presbytery.  For,  while  they  do  exalt  bishops  to  a 
most  unscriptural  and  blasphemous  elevation,  they  are  equal- 
ly exorbitant  in  the  claims  they  put  forth  for  presbyters.  This 
may  be  seen  in  many  passages  to  which  we  refer.'-  Igna- 
tius, also,  determines  the  meaning  to  be  attached  to  the  term 
presbytery.  He  frequently  uses  this  word,  and  always  to 
signify  a  number  of  presbyters  only.  A  few  instances  may 
suffice.  In  his  epistle  to  the  Ephesians  he  says,  '  Being  sub- 
ject to  the  bishop  and  the  presbytery.'3  Again,  'He  that 
does  any  thing  without  the  bishop  and  the  presbytery.'4 
Again,  'Respect  the  bishop  and  the  presbytery.'5  In  all 
these  instances,  and  many  more  that  might  be  mentioned,  it 
is  evident,  to  demonstration,  that  ihe  word  presbutery, 
with  Ignatius,  means  a  number  of  presbyters,  and  nothing 
else.  Ignatius  further  assists  the  cause  of  presbytery,  by 
overthrowing  the  foundation  of  the  prelatical  doctrine  of 
apostolical  succession.  Certain  it  is,  that  the  title  of  apostle, 
or  successors  of  the  apostles,  had  not  been  assumed  in  the 
time  of  Ignatius,  who  '  denies  that  bishops  are  apostles,' 
'  though,'  says  Dr.  Willet,6  '  he  were  near  to  the  apostles'  time, 
being  the  third  bishop  of  Antioch,  after  Peter,  and  had  seen 
Christ  after  his  resurrection.  Writing  to  the  Antiochians,  he 
saith,  I  do  not  command  these  things  as  an  apostle.' 

A  further  service,  which  Ignatius  renders  to  the  presbyte- 
rian  cause,  is,  the  constant  and  unequivocal  manner  in  which 

1)  The  force  of  this  evidence  is  corporation  of  the  faithful,  united  un- 
admitted by  both  Mede  and   Burnet,  der  one  bishop  or  pastor,  and  that  was 
It  should  seem,  (saith  Mede,  see  Proof  in  the  city  and  place  where  the  bishop 
for  Churches  in  the  Second  Century,  had  his  see  and  residence, 
pp.  28,  29,  and  Burnet's  Obs.  on  the  2)  Ep.  to  Eph.  §  2  and  20 ;  Ep.  to 
1st  and  2nd   Canon,   p.  .51,)  that,  in  Magn.  §  2,  7, 13;    Ep.  to  Trail.  §  13; 
these  first  times,  (before  dioceses  were  Ep.  to  Phil.  Salut.  and  §  4,  7  ;   Ep.  to 
divided  into  those  lesser  and  subordi-  Smyrn.  §  12. 
nate  churches  we  now  call  parishes,            3)  §  2. 
and  presbyters  assigned  to  them,)  they            4)  Ep.  ad  Trail,  p.  50. 
had  not  only  one  altar,  one  church  or  5)  Ep.  ad  Philad.  p.  43. 
dominicum,  but  one  altar  to  a  church,            6)  Willet  Syn.  Pap.  p.  273. 
taking  church  for  the    company  or 


356  THE    TESTIMONY    OF    IGNATIUS  [BOOK  II, 

he  represents  presbyters  as  being  the  successors  of  the  apos- 
tles, and  as  occupying  their  place,  ministry,  and  authority -in 
the  church  of  Christ.1  He  teaches,  that  'the  deacon  is  sub- 
ject to  the  presbyters,  as  to  the  law  of  Jesus  Christ ; '  that 
'  the  presbyters  preside  in  the  place  of  the  council  of  the 
apostles  ;'2  '  be  ye  subject  to  your  presbyters,'  says  he,  '  as  to 
the  apostles  of  Jesus  Christ,  our  hope;'3  'let  all  reverence 
the  presbyters  as  the  sanhedrim  of  God,  and  college  of 
apostles  ; '4  '  being  subject  to  your  bishop,  as  to  the  command 
of  God,  and  so  also  to  your  presbyters;'  'see,'  therefore, 
that  'ye  follow  the  presbyters  as  the  apostles.'5  But  further, 
Ignatius  allows  of  no  prelatical  distinction  between  the  bish- 
op and  the  presbyter.  Prelates  claim,  as  we  have  seen,  the 
original  and  exclusive  right  to  preach,  administer  sacraments, 
offer  public  prayers,  govern,  and  ordain.  But  nowhere  does 
Ignatius  appropriate  these  functions  to  the  bishop,  and  deny 
them  to  the  presbyters.  On  the  contrary,  he  every  where 
implies,  that  all  these  powers  were  exercised  by  the  bishop 
and  presbyters,  in  common,  so  that  Polycarp  could  not  even 
send  a  messenger  to  the  church  of  Antioch,  without  calling 
together  the  presbyters.  And  if  the  presbyters  were  to  do 
nothing  without  the  bishop,  so  was  the  bishop  to  be  equally 
dependent  on  the  presbyters.  Neither  were  the  presbyters 
one  whit  more  subjected  to  the  bishop,  than  are  assistant 
ministers  or  curates  to  their  rectors  ;  or  the  bishop  elevated 
above  them,  any  more  than  a  senior  minister  is  over  his 
junior  assistant,  in  any  large  presbyterian  congregation.  For, 
as  his  episcopacy  was  parochial,  all  the  superiority  the  Igna- 
tian  bishop  could  have,  was  that  of  the  presiding  presbyter, 
in  a  church  which  employed  two  or  more  ministers,  and  this 
is  far  enough  removed,  either  from  diocesan  episcopacy  or 
a  diocesan  prelate.  And  if  it  be  objected,  that  this  implies 
a  more  numerous  ministry  than  could  have  been  supported, 
it  must  be  borne  in  mind,  that  many,  in  the  circumstances  in 
which  the  church  was  then  placed,  neither  needed  nor  re- 
ceived any  maintenance  at  all  from  the  church  ;°  that,  in  the 
exigencies  of  the  church,  many  clergymen  pursued  some 
calling,  by  which  they  procured  a  livelihood  ;7  that  they  lived 

1)  See  Ep.  to  Magit  §  7  ;  Ep.  to  6)  See  the  Apost.  Constit.  Canon 
Smyrn.  §  8  ;  Ep.  to  Trail.  §  2,  3  ;  Ep.  40  ;  Council  of  Antioch,  Canon  25  ; 
to  Philad.  §  5.  Chrysost.  de   Sacerd.   Serm.  3 ;   Am- 

2)  Ep.  to  Magn.  §  6.  brose  Off.  lib.  i.  c.  36  ;   Boyse's  Anct. 

3)  Ep.  to  Trail.  §  2.  Episc.  p.  102. 

4)  Ibid.  7)  Apost.  Const.  Can.  23,24  ;  3rd 

5)  Ep.  to  Smyrn.  §  8.  Council  of  Carthage,  Can.  15. 


CHAF.  II.]  IS    FAVORABLE    TO    PRESBYTERY.  3-37 

in  great  parsimony  and  frugality;1  that  many  were  then 
willing  to  cast  their  property  into  the  hands  of  ihe  church; 
and  that,  whether  these  circumstances  account  for  it  or  not, 
the  fact  was  as  has  been  staled.  The  bishop  and  his  pres- 
byters then  lived  in  common,  dwelt  in  ihe  same  house,  and 
were  maintained  out  of  the  same  common  fund,  provided  by 
the  offerings  of  the  faithful  at  the  communion  table.2  The 
church  at  Magnesia  had  thus  two  presbyters  and  one  deacon, 
although  much  smaller  than  those  of  Ephesus,  or  Antioch. 
In  fact,  every  church,  then,  was  a  kind  of  theological  semina- 
ry and  missionary  institution,  from  which  the  word  of  God 
sounded  abroad  into  all  the  region  round  about.  And  thus 
it  was,  also,  at  the  reformation  in  Geneva,  and  throughout 
the  churches  of  France. 

Nay.  further,  does  not  Ignatius  fully  authenticate  our  claim 
of  presbyterial  ordination.  By  whom  was  ordination  then 
performed  ?  Certainly  by  the  bishop  with  his  presbyters,  that 
is,  by  the  presbytery.  If  the  bishop  could  do  nothing  with- 
out his  presbyters,  of  course  he  could  not  ordain  alone.  The 
bishop,  then,  had  the  same  charge,  office,  and  power,  that 
presbyterian  pastors  now  have,  and  he,  with  the  other  pres- 
byters, ordained.  There  was,  in  Ignaiius's  time,  neither 
prelacy,  prelate,  nor  prelatical  ordination.3  For,  even  if  we 
gratuitously  suppose,  that  in  the  ordination  of  presbyters  or 
bishops,  neighboring  bishops  united,  still  they  were  but  pa- 
rochial pastors  or  presbyters  ;  they  constituted,  together,  a 
presbytery,  and  their  ordination  was  still  presbyterian.  And 
if  prelatists  will  convert  the  Ignatian  bishop  into  a  prelate, 
what  will  they  make  of  it  ?  In  the  epistle  to  the  Magnesians, 
Ignatius  is  represented  as  exhorting  them  not  to  use  their 
bishop,  Damas,  too  familiarly,  because  'his  order  appeared  to 
be  an  innovation  J  upon  their  previous  form  of  pure  presbyte- 
rian simplicity,  thus  plainly  indicating,  that,  in  this  church,  at 
least,  any  superiority  whatever,  in  "the  presiding  presln  u »i 
over  the  others,  had  not,  originally,  been  recognised,  and  that 
the  attempt  to  make  the  bishop  a'  higher  office,  was  entirely 
an  innovation.4     This  is  admitted  by  one  of  the  greatest  ad- 

1)  4th  Counc.  of  Carthage.  telerii.  Patr.  Apost.  torn.  ii.  p.  IS.  and 

2)  See  Paul  Sarpis  on  Benefices,  also  Isnatii  Ep.  ed.  Vossii,  Lond. 
art.  1.  2,  and  3  ;  Tolet  de  Sacred,  lib.  ll  80,  4to.  p.  31.  And  vet  archbishop 
v.  c.  4.  p.  722;  Apost.  Const,  lib.  ii.  c.  Wake,  with  unparalleled  effrontery, 
27  ;  Boyse,  ibid,  p.  104.  translates  these  words,  '  not  consider- 

3)  See  Ep.  to  Philad.  §  7.  and  ing  his  age.  which,  indeed,  to  appear- 
Dr.  Nolan's  Cath.  Char,  of  Christ,  ance.  is  young.'  See  Burnet's  Obs.  on 
P-  17<5-  the  1st   Canon,  pp.  S,  9,  who  admits, 

4)  The  words  are, '  c:/T§:jmx;T4c  that,  from  this,  -some  will  infer,  that 
tdv  qu-itftim  vumf^ixj,y  rct^n.'     See  Co-  episcopacy  was  then  newly  invented.' 


358  THE    TESTIMONY    OF    IGNATIUS  [BOOK  II. 

vocates  of  the  prelacy,  Dr.  Hammond,  who  allows,  that,  '  be- 
fore the  writing  of  Ignatius's  epistles,'  the  intermediate  order 
of  the  ministry  '  was  instituted  in  all  the  churches,'  there  hav- 
ing been,  before  that  time,  only  bishops  or  presbyters,  and 
deacons.1  Du  Pin,  also,  is  of  opinion,  that  the  difference  be- 
tween bishop  and  presbyter  took  its  rise  under  Ignatius, 
while,  even  then,  it  implied  only  a  presidency.'2 

Ignatius  affords  our  cause  still  further  help,  by  the  fact,  lhat 
whenever  he  is  represented  as  superstitiously  and  sinfully 
elevating  the  ministerial  office,  he  is  found  appealing  for 
authority,  not  to  the  word  of  God,  but  to  his  own  weak  and 
fanciful  visions  ;  thus  proving,  that  even  his  hierarchical  cor- 
rupters could  find  no  other  basis  on  which  to  rest  whatever 
in  these  epistles  is  favorable  to  their  scheme. 

Finally,  these  epistles  admit,  that,  with  all  the  pretensions 
of  the  bishop  to  such  unbounded  authority  in  the  ministry, 
the  churches,  then,  were  not  yet  brought  in  bondage  to  the 
yoke  of  prelatical  tyranny,  since  Ignatius  is  represented  as 
complaining,  that  '  some  call,  indeed,  their  governor  bishop, 
but  yet  do  all  things  without  him;'3  that  is,  as  hierarchists 
would  interpret  it,  they  exercised  the  free  representative  liber- 
ty of  presbyterian  churches,  and  their  just  right  to  call  their 
ministers  to  account  when  they  transcended  the  powers  of 
their  office.  Grant,  therefore,  that  Ignatius  uses  very  inflated 
language,  as  descriptive  of  the  ministerial  office,  and  when 
he  speaks  of  bishops,  yet  let  Ignatius  have  the  privilege  of 
explaining  his  own  meaning,  (supposing  these  extravagances 
to  be  his,  which  we  can  never  believe,)  and  his  grandilo- 
quence will,  at  once,  lose  all  its  prelatical  significance,  and 
prove  as  utterly  worthless  to  the  cause  of  the  hierarchy,  as  it 
is  foolish,  unscriptural,  and  bombastic  in  itself.  For  the  very 
same  language,  and  grandiloquent  titles  and  dignities,  are, 
as  we  have  seen,  ascribed  by  him  to  presbyters,  as  well  as  to 
prelates,  and  of  necessity,  therefore,  they  cannot  be  made  to 
imply  any  peculiar,  distinct,  divine  supremacy  in  an  order  of 
prelates. 

We  are,  therefore,  left  to  infer,  that,  seeing  Ignatius  so  un- 
equivocally asserted  the  divine  origin  and  powers  of  presby- 
ters, it  was  found  necessary,  in  order  to  obviate  the  force  of 
his  testimony,  to  interpolate  his  writings  with  the  most  ful- 
some and  unapostolic  panegyrics  upon  bishops. 

These  and  other  considerations,  which  might  be  adduced, 

1)  Dis.   iv.  p.  20S,  §  9;    see,  in  2)  Eccl.  Hist.  vol.  i.  p.  42. 

Baxter's  Disput.  on  Ch.  Govt.  p.  58.  3)  Ep.  to  Magn.  §  4. 


CHAP.  II.  ]  IS    FAVORABLE    TO    PRESBYTERY.  359 

are  sufficient  to  prove,  unless  he  is  grossly  contradictory  and 
unworthy  of  any  credit,  that  Ignatius  had  no  conception  of  an 
order  of  prelates,  but  that  he  was,  on  the  contrary,  in  his 
original  form  of  speaking,  a  true  believer  in  the  primitive 
presbyterian  constitution  of  the  churches  of  Christ.1  Even 
as  it  is,  he  declares,  that  presbyters  are  possessed  of  the  pow- 
ers of  government,  and  are  the  true  and  only  successors  of 
the  apostles,  and  occupy  their  places.  Nay,  while  he  only 
recognises  the  propriety  of  episcopacy,  even  in  its  parochial 
form,  he  makes  presbytery  an  institution  and  law  of  Jesus 
Christ.2  Prelacy,  therefore,  can  find  no  support,  either  for 
the  name,  order,  or  powers  of  its  prelatic  order,  even  in  these 
corrupted  epistles.  There  is  nothing  that  can,  with  any  jus- 
tice, be  made  to  favor  diocesan  prelacy,  but,  on  the  contrary, 
every  thing  to  harmonize  with  presbyterian  parity,  as  is 
fully  admitted  by  bishop  Stillingfleet,  when  he  affirms,  that 
1  Ignatius  himself  cannot  give  a  doubting  mind  satisfaction 
of  the  divine  institution  of  bishops,  when,  in  the  only  place 
brought  to  that  purpose,  his  sense  is  quite  different  from  that 
it  is  brought  for.'3 

§  8.     Concluding-  remarks  on  the  testimony  of  the  apostolical 

fathers. 

That  is  true,  says  Vincentius,  which  was  believed  always, 
every  where,  and  by  all.  Now  when  we  ask  these  earliest 
custodiers  of  the  deposited  faith  of  the  now  sainted  apostles, 
'was  it  always,  and  everywhere,  and  by  all  the  churches 
before  and  in  your  age,  received  as  a  part  of  the  divine 
institution,  that  an  order  of  prelates  should  have  paramount 
authority,  as  the  only  ministerial  successors  of  the  apostles? 
Did  this  belief  and  practice  pervade  all  the  christian  churches, 
and  has  it  been  so  generally  acknowledged,  that  all  conlrary 
views  have  been  disallowed  and  held  invalid?'  —  when  we 
put  these  questions,  under  all  the  disadvantage  of  being  al- 
lowed but  an  infinitesimal  fraction  of  those,  who  were  in 
fairness,  the  church,  and  whose  consent  could  alone  fairly 

1)  See  Salmasiua  in  Anderson's  the  Ancient  Episcopacy.  Dr.  Wil- 
Def.  of  Presb.  p.  182,  and  Div.  Right  son's  Primit.  Govt,  of  the  Ch.  p.  52, 
oi  the  Mm.  part  li.  p.  113.  &c.     Pierce's  Vind.  of  Dissent,  p.  iii. 

2)  Shlhngfleet's  Iren.  p.  30S.  ch.  i.  pp.  G4-C8.     Dr.  Nolan's   Calh. 

3)  Iren.  p.  310.  See  p.  309.  See  Char,  of  Christ,  pp. 230 -237, 173,  174, 
also  Jameson's  Fund,  of  Hier.  p.  134.  102.  Boyse's  Anc.  Ch.  pp.  63-10(3. 
See  his  testimony  in  full  in  Dr.  Miller  Jameson's  Fundamentals  of  the  Hier. 
on  theMin.pp.  92-97,319,  and  also  part  ii.  Baxter  on  Episc.  part  ii.  p.  21. 
very  fully  in  Boyse's  clear  Account  of 


360  ALL    THE    APOSTOLICAL    FATHERS  [BOOK  II. 

represent  the  quod  ab  omnibus,  or  quod  ubique,  or  quod  sem- 
per;  and  under  the  further  disadvantage  of  having  had  our 
witnesses  drilled  and  prepared  for  cross  examination  by  these 
very  prelates  themselves,  and  some  of  them,  at  least,  confess- 
edly corrupted,  and  their  testimony  convicted  of  wilful  per- 
jury (as  for  instance,  Ignatius) — yet  although  thus  brought 
into  court,  under  circumstances,  in  which  no  lawyer  would 
hazard  the  value  of  a  dollar,  —  when  we  put  these  questions, 
how  flatly  and  indignantly  do  these  martyr-fathers  repel  this 
prelatic  calumny  upon  themselves,  upon  their  churches,  and 
upon  the  spirit  and  liberty  of  the  gospel  ?  These  venerated 
men  have  now  been  introduced  into  our  presence.  They 
have  been  called  upon  to  state  their  views,  on  that  very  ques- 
tion, whose  undisputed  verity  has  been  asserted  with  such 
unblushing  effrontery.  We  have  heard  their  testimony.  We 
have  listened  to  the  declaration  of  Clement  Romanus,  ascrib- 
ing to  presbyters  what  is  claimed  for  prelates.  We  have 
heard  Hernias  declare,  that  presbyters  preside  over  the  church. 
We  have  heard  Polycarp  avouch,  that  he  was  associated 
with  the  presbyters  to  whom  he  enjoins  the  church  to  be  sub- 
ject, using  no  other  title  whatever  for  the  christian  ministry. 
We  have  also  learned  from  Ignatius,  though  brim-full  of 
interpolated  testimony  against  the  truth  of  his  own  original 
record,  that  he  knew  nothing  whatever  of  such  an  order 
as  is  here  claimed  ;  that  his  bishop  was  no  other  than  the 
pastor  of  a  congregation  ;  and  that  presbyters  were  unques- 
tionably entitled  to  spiritual  jurisdiction  in  the  church  of 
Christ. 

Such,  then,  is  the  testimony  given  by  these  apostolic  fathers, 
and  that  too  after  coming  through  the  expurgatorial  fires  of 
prelatic  jealousy,  during  as  many  centuries,  —  to  the  quod  sem- 
per, the  quod  ubique,  and  the  quod  ab  omnibus,  —  as  it  regards 
the  rights  and  power  of  presbyters,  and  the  assumed  prerog- 
atives of  the  prelatic  hierarchy.  And  now,  in  making  our 
appeal  to  our  readers,  as  honest,  impartial,  and  reasonable 
men,  we  call  upon  them  to  give  a  judgment  —  and  that  on 
the  very  principles  of  our  opponents  —  in  favor  of  presbyters 
and  against  prelates,  and  to  God  shall  be  the  praise  and  the 
glory. 

It  may  be  well  to  throw  together  a  few  testimonies,  in  addi- 
tion to  those  already  adduced,  in  confirmation  of  our  inter- 
pretation of  these  writers.  Speaking  of  Clement,  the  illus- 
trious Neander  says,  '  in  other  passages  of  the  same  letter  we 
rather  meet  with  the  free  spirit  of  the  original  presbyterian 


CHAP.  II.]    TESTIFY  IN  FAVOR  OF  PRESHYTERY.         361 

constitution  of  the  church.'1  Again,  under  the  section  '  upon 
the  alterations  in  the  constitution  of  ihe  church  after  the  time 
i»l  the  apostles,'  Neander  gives  the  following  account:  '  The 
alterations  which  were  introduced  into  the  constitution  of  the 
chuivh,  in  this  period,  refer  principally  to  the  following  heads: 
1st,  The  distinction  between  the  bishop  and  the  presbyter; 
and  the  development  of  the  monarchico-episcopal  form  of 
government  2d,  The  distinction  between  the  spirituals  and 
the  laity,  and  the  forming  of  a  priestly  caste,  in  opposition  to 
the  evangelical  idea  of  a  christian  priesthood.  And,  3d,  The 
increase  of  ihe  number  of  ecclesiastical  offices.  In  regard 
to  the  first,  we  have  no  certain  and  complete  records  of  the 
manner  in  which  the  alterations  occurred  in  particular  in- 
stances; but,  from  the  analogy  of  the  case,  we  find  very  lit  tie 
difficulty  in  arriving  at  very  clear  conclusions.  It  was  but 
natural,  thai  as  the  presbyters,  originally  equal,  formed  a  con- 
sulting council,  it  should  speedily  happen,  that  one  of  their 
number  should  obtain  the  presidency.  This  might  be  so 
arranged,  that,  according  to  a  certain  rule,  the  presidency 
should  be  occupied  by  each  of  the  members  in  rotation.  It 
is  possible,  that  at  the  very  beginning  such  an  arrangement 
may  have  existed  in  many  places,  yet  we  do  not  find  the 
slightest  historical  trace  of  it ;  and,  not  only  so,  but  on  the 
other  hand,  we  do  not  meet  with  any  trace  to  prove,  that 
originally  the  office  of  the  president  of  the  college  of  presbyters 
was  distinguished  by  any  particular  name.  But,  from  what 
we  find  in  the  second  century,  we  must  conclude,  that  soon 
after  the  apostolic  times  the  standing  office  of  a  president  of 
the  presbyters  must  have  been  formed,  and  that  this  presi- 
dent, in  so  far  as  (during  his  presidentship)  he  bore  the  prin- 
cipal oversight  over  the  rest,  obtained  the  name  of  a  bishop, 
and  thus  came  to  be  distinguished  from  the  other  presbyters. 
This  name  was  thus,  at  last,  given  exclusively  to  the  presi- 
dent;  originally  they  all  bore  it  in  common,  for  the  bishop, 
who  thus  acted  as  president,  had,  certainly,  no  other  official 
distinction  than  simply  primus  infer  pares.2 

Mosheim,  in  his  Commentaries,  as  well  as  in  his  History, 
gives  the  same  testimony.3  '  That  the  first  churches  had  no 
bishops,  may,  I  think,  very  clearly  be  proved  from  the  writ- 
ings of  the  New  Testament.'4     '  Whilst  the  christian  assem- 

1)  Hist,  of  the  Christ.  Rel.  vol.  i.  3)  Comment,  on  the  Affairs  of  the 
p.  199.  Ch. before  Constantino,  vol.  i.  pp. 

2)  Ibid.  p.  193.    See  also  his  Hist.  226,&c.    Instit.  of  Eccl    Hist.  vol.  L 
of  the  first  Plant,  of  the  Ch.  vol.  i.  pp.  p.  85.  Am.  ed. 

41,167,  &c.  I)   P.  226,  note. 

46 


362  THE    CHURCHES    OF    THE    APOSTOLICAL         [BOOK  II. 

blies  or  churches  were  but  small,  two,  three,  or  four  presbyters 
were  found  amply  sufficient  to  labor  for  the  welfare,  and 
regulate  the  concerns,  of  each  ;  and  over  a  few  men  like 
these,  inflamed  as  they  were  with  the  sincerest  piety  towards 
God,  and  receiving  but  very  moderate  stipends,  it  was  not 
required,  that  any  one  should  be  appointed  to  preside  in  the 
capacity  of  a  ruler  or  superintendent.  But,  as  the  congrega- 
tions of  christians  became  every  day  larger  and  larger,  a  pro- 
portionate gradual  increase  in  the  number  of  the  presbyters 
and  ministers  of  necessity  took  place ;  and  as  the  rights  and 
power  of  all  were  the  same,  it  was  soon  found  impossible, 
under  the  circumstances  of  that  age,  when  every  church  was 
left  to  the  care  of  itself,  for  any  thing  like  general  harmony 
to  be  maintained  amongst  them,  or  for  the  various  necessities 
of  the  multitude,  to  be  regularly  and  satisfactorily  provided 
for,  without  some  one  to  preside,  and  exert  a  controlling  influ- 
ence. Such  being  the  case,  the  churches  adopted  the  prac- 
tice of  selecting,  and  placing  at  the  head  of  the  council  of 
presbyters,  some  one  man  of  eminent  wisdom  and  prudence, 
whose  peculiar  duty  it  should  be  to  allot  to  his  colleagues 
their  several  tasks,  and  by  his  advice,  and  every  other  mode 
of  assistance,  to  prevent,  as  far  as  in  him  lay,  the  interests  of 
the  assembly,  over  which  he  was  thus  appointed  to  preside, 
from  experiencing  any  kind  of  detriment  or  injury.' 

Gieseler,  also,  in  his  very  elaborate  history,  takes  the  same 
ground.1  '  The  new  churches  every  where  formed  them- 
selves on  the  model  of  the  mother  church,  at  Jerusalem.  At 
the  head  of  each  were  the  elders,  (noeafivTFQoi,  emaxonot,)  all 
officially  of  equal  rank,  though  in  several  instances  a  peculiar 
authority  seems  to  have  been  conceded  to  some  one  individ- 
ual, from  personal  considerations.  Under  the  superinten- 
dence of  the  elders  were  the  deacons  and  deaconesses.  (Rom. 
16 :  1 ;  1  Tim.  5 :  9,  10.)  All  these  received  their  support, 
like  the  poor,  from  the  free  contributions  of  the  church,  (1 
Tim.  5  :  17 ;  1  Cor.  9 :  13.)'  '  The  apostles  had  the  general 
superintendence  of  all  the  churches,  and  were  co-presbyters 
in  each  particular  church,  (oouTTQFofivTtgoi,  1  Pet.  5 :  1.)' 

Spanheim,  in  his  Ecclesiastical  Annals,  of  which  Mr. 
Wright,  the  episcopal  translator,  says,  that  it '  has  raised  him 
to  the  very  first  rank  among  historians  of  the  church,  and  will 
continue  to  be  a  monument  cere  perenniusj2  under  century 
first,  affirms,  'bishops3   (episcopi,  overseers)  were  ordained 

1)  Text  Book  of  Eccl.  Hist.  vol.  2)  Eccl.  Ann.  Transl.  Pref.p.  12. 

i.pp.  56-5S.  Lond.  1S40. 

3)  Ibid,  p.  154. 


CHAT.  II. j    FATHERS  WERE  ALL  TRESBYTERIAN.  363 

over  every  church,  and  so  called  from  their  duly  to  oversee 
sacred  affairs,  called  also  presbyters  or  elders,  from  their  age 
and  gravity ;  shepherds,  from  their  office  of  feeding  the  flock ; 
teachers  and  ministers  of  the  word,  from  their  office  of  teach- 
ing ;  and  chiefs  and  rulers,  from  their  prerogative  of  gov- 
erning.' 

Du  Pin  allows  no  distinction  between  bishops  and  presby- 
ters in  the  first  century.  He  supposes  a  distinction  to  have 
arisen  in  the  second  century,  under  Ignatius.  Even  then, 
however,  he  only  pleads  for  'some  distinction  ;'  so  far  as  to 
imply,  that  the  bishops  '  presided  over  the  church  and  pres- 
byters.' l 

Milman,  in  his  recent  History  of  Christianity,  while  he 
advocates  the  episcopal  form  of  the  early  church,  yet  candid- 
ly acknowledges  the  extreme  difficulty  of  deciding  the  mat- 
ter. The  primitive  constitution  of  these  churches  is  a  subject 
which  it  is  impossible  to  decline  ;  though  few  points  in  chris- 
tian history  rest  on  more  dubious  and  imperfect,  in  general 
on  inferential  evidence,  yet  few  have  been  contested  with 
greater  pertinacity.  The  whole  of  Christianity,  when  it 
emerges  out  of  the  obscurity  (that  is,  the  evident  presbyterian 
parity)  of  the  first  century,  appears  uniformly  governed  by 
certain  superiors  of  each  community  called  bishops.  But  the 
origin  and  extent  of  this  superiority,  and  the  manner  in 
which  the  bishop  assumes  a  distinct  authority  from  the  infe- 
rior presbyters,  is  among  those  difficult  questions  of  christian 
history  which,  since  the  reformation,  has  been  more  and  more 
darkened,  by  those  fatal  enemies  to  candid  and  dispassionate 
inquiry,  prejudice,  and  interest.  The  earliest  Christian  com- 
munities appear  to  have  been  ruled  and  represented,  in  the 
absence  of  the  apostle,  who  was  their  first  founder,  by  their 
elders,  who  are  likewise  called  bishops,  or  overseers  of  the 
churches.  These  presbyter  bishops  and  deacons  are  the 
only  two  orders  which  we  discover  at  first  in  the  church  of 
Ephesus,at  Philippi,  and  perhaps  in  Crete.  On  the  other  hand, 
at  a  very  early  period,  one  religious  functionary,  superior  to 
the  rest,  appears  to  have  been  almost  universally  recognised ; 
at  least,  it  is  difficult  to  understand  how,  in  so  short  a  time, 
among  communities,  though  not  entirely  disconnected,  yet 
scattered  over  the  whole  Roman  world,  a  scheme  of  govern- 
ment popular,  or  rather  aristocratical,  should  become,  even 
in  form,  monarchical.'2 

1)  Eccl.  Hist.  vol.  i.  p.  42.  2)  The  Hist,  of  Christ,  vol.  ii.  pp. 

63,  64.  Eng.  ed.  B.  ii.  ch.  iv. 


364  ALL    THE    CHURCHES    OF    THE    APOSTOLICAL      [BOOK  II. 

'  All  presbyters,'  says  the  Rev.  Mr.  Riddle,1  '  as  left  in  the 
churches  by  the  apostles,  were  equal;  but  soon  after  the 
apostles'  times,  precedence  and  authority  were  granted  to 
certain  presbyters,  in  the  several  churches,  as  an  expedient 
for  good  order.'  So  also,  in  another  place,  he  says,2  '  in  the 
earliest  times,  when  no  formal  distinction  between  smaxonot, 
and  ngeafivTEQoi,  had  taken  place,  the  presbyters,  especially  the 
KQoeaiwTsg,  (1  Tim.  5 :  17,)  discharged  those  episcopal  func- 
tions, which  afterwards,  when  a  careful  distinction  of  eccle- 
siastical officers  had  been  made,  they  were  not  permitted  to 
discharge,  otherwise  than  as  substitutes  or  vicars  of  a  bishop.'3 

The  able  author  of  Letters  on  the  Fathers,  who  is  a  mem- 
ber of  the  church  of  England,  thus  speaks.4  '  As  to  bishops, 
distinct  from  presbyters,  we  have  no  evidence,  except  that  of 
Ignatius,  for  the  two  first  centuries.  Clement  and  Polycarp 
most  clearly  recognise  but  two  orders.  Barnabas  and  Her- 
nias having  nothing  very  distinct  on  the  subject.  Justin 
mentions  only  two  officers  in  the  church  in  his  time,  whom 
he  calls  president,  (rtgoEarw;,)  and  deacon,  (dtaxovo;.)  Irenaus 
uses  the  terms  bishop  and  presbyter  indiscriminately.  Thus 
we  see  the  weight  of  evidence  during  the  two  first  centuries, 
is  against  the  three  orders,  which  may  naturally  create  a  sus- 
picion, that  those  passages  in  Ignatius,  which  refer  to  them, 
are  interpolations  ;  for  he  stands  alone  in  what  he  states,  for 
the  first  two  centuries,  and  not  only  alone  but  opposed  by 
the  strongest  authorities  during  that  period.' 

Dr.  Hawkins,  in  his  recent  discourse,  says,5  '  There  is  no 
limit,  indeed,  to  the  universal  reception  of  the  orders  of  pres- 
byter and  deacon ;  it  is  coeval  with  the  first  planting  of  the 
churches  of  Christ ;  and,  if  we  cannot  assert,  as  I  think  we 
cannot,  that,  at  the  close  of  the  first  century,  every  considera- 
ble church  had  its  bishop,  as  well  as  its  presbyters  and  dea- 
cons, still  there  is,  at  least,  abundant  evidence,  that  it  was  the 
general  practice.' 

These  testimonies  are  very  strongly  confirmed  by  the  Pe- 
shito  Syriac  version  of  the  New  Testament,  made  according 
to  bishop  Walton,  Carpzov,  Leusden,  bishop  Lowth,  Dr.  Ken- 
nicott,  and  Michaelis,  in  the  first  century,  or  in  the  earlier  part 
of  the  second  century,6  uniformly  renders,  the  ngeoBvreQovg,  as 
it  occurs  in  Acts,  20:  17,  28;  in  Peter,  5:  1,  2,  'elder ;'  and 

1)  Christian  Antiquities,  p.  1S6.  Lond.  1S42.  p.  5.     See  also  his  Bamp- 

2)  Ibid,  p.  233.  ton  Lect.  p.  174. 

3)  See  also  his  Eccl.  Chronology,  6)  Home's  Introd.  vol.  ii.  p.  221, 
p.  10.  who  thinks  this  '  the  most  probable 

4)  P.  67,  opinion.' 

5)  On  the  Apostolical  Succession. 


CHAP.  II.]  AGE    WERE    PRESBYTERIAN.  365 

the  word  entcrxoTtijc,  in  1  Tim.  3:1,  &c,  the  '  office  of  an 
elder.'  On  this  fact,  the  learned  John  David  Michaelis,  in 
'  Introduction  to  the  New  Testament,'  thus  remarks,  '  We 
know  that  the  distinction  between  bishops  and  elders  was 
introduced  into  the  Christian  church  in  a  very  early  age ;  yet 
the  distinction  was  unknown  to  the  Syrian  translator.'  In 
reference  to  this  statement,  Dr.  Herbert  Marsh,  afterwards 
bishop  of  Peterborough,  and  a  zealous  high  churchman,  in 
his  '  Notes '  on  Michealis's  work,  makes  the  following  ob- 
servation :  '  This  proves,  that  the  Syriac  translator  understood 
his  original ;  and  that  he  made  a  proper  distinction  between 
the  language  of  the  primitive  and  the  hierarchal  church.' 

This  testimony,  from  the  Syriac  version,  is  remarkably 
confirmed  by  existing  facts.  Speaking  of  the  Nestorians, 
Dr.  Grant  says,1  '  Their  form  of  church  government  is  essen- 
tially episcopal ;  but,  with  a  single  exception  in  the  Jelu 
tribe,  there  is  not  a  bishop  among  the  independent  Nesto- 
rians, where  their  religious  forms  have  been  preserved,  the 
most  exempt  from  any  foreign  influence.  It  was  a  singular 
fact,  to  which  my  attention  was  first  called  by  the  testimony 
of  Dr.  Buchanan,  that  there  is  not  a  word  in  the  Syriac  lan- 
guage, expressive  of  the  office  of  bishop.  The  Nestorians, 
in  common  with  the  other  Syrians,  have  borrowed  the  Greek 
term,  episcopos.  This  is  the  more  remarkable,  considering 
the  fact,  that  the  Syriac  language  was  extensively  used  in 
Palestine,  in  the  days  of  our  Saviour,  and  was  spoken  by  our 
Lord  himself;  and  considering,  also,  the  very  early  date  of 
the  Syriac  version  of  the  scriptures,  as  early  as  the  beginning 
of  the  second  century.  In  every  case  where  the  term  bishop 
occurs  in  our  version,  in  theirs  it  is  rendered  presbyter  or 
priest.  I  make  these  statements  with  the  single  remark,  that, 
while  this  form  of  church  government  may  be  the  best  for 
the  Nestorians,  in  their  circumstances,  there  is  enough  in  the 
facts  I  have  mentioned,  to  caution  us  about  too  hasty  an  in- 
ference concerning  the  apostolic  origin  of  episcopacy,  on  the 
ground,  that  it  exists  in  a  church,  which  was  founded  by  the 
apostles.' 

Thus,  it  appears,  that  the  earliest  writers,  the  best  evidence 
that  can  be  given,  and  the  first  links  on  which  the  whole 
chain  must  be  suspended,  are  all  against  prelacy,  and  in  favor 
of  presbytery. 

1)  The  Nestorians  the  Lost  Tribes,  pp.  105,  106.  See  Marsh's  Michaelis, 
vol.  ii.  pp.  32,  553. 


CHAPTER  III. 


THE  TESTIMONY  OF  THE  PRIMITIVE  FATHERS,  IN  FAVOR  OF 
THE  CLAIMS  OF  PRESBYTERS  TO  THE  TRUE  MINIS- 
TERIAL   SUCCESSION. 


§  1.     The  testimony  of  Papias,  and  Justin  Martyr. 

Of  the  primitive  fathers,  the  first  of  whom  we  have  any 
record  is  Papias,  bishop  of  Hierapolis,  in  Asia,  A.  D.  116. 
Of  his  exposition  of  the  oracles  of  God  only  a  few  fragments 
remain.  And  of  these,  the  only  passage  bearing  on  the 
question  before  us,  is  perhaps  the  one  preserved  by  Euse- 
bius,1  and  which  is  as  follows:  '  I  shall  not  think  it  grievous 
to  set  down  in  writing,  with  my  interpretations,  the  things 
which  I  have  learned  of  the  presbyters,  and  remember  as  yet 
very  well,  being  fully  certified  of  their  truth.  If  I  met  any 
where  with  one  who  had  conversed  with  the  presbyters,  I 
inquired  after  the  sayings  of  the  presbyters  ;  what  Andrew, 
what  Peter,  what  Philip,  what  Thomas,  or  James  had  said ; 
what  John,  or  Matthew,  or  any  other  disciples  of  the  Lord 
were  wont  to  say ;  and  what  Ariston,  or  John  the  presbyter, 
said :  for  I  am  of  the  mind  that  I  could  not  profit  so  much 
by  reading  books,  as  by  attending  to  those  who  spake  with 
the  living  voice.'  It  is  very  evident  from  this  extract,  that,  in 
the  estimation  of  this  primitive  father,  the  presbyterate  was 
the  highest  order  in  the  ministry,  and  the  true  succession  of 
the  apostles,  in  their  ordinary  ministry,  since  he  speaks  only 
of  presbyters,  and  expressly  calls  the  apostles  themselves, 
presbyters.2 

Of  Justin  Martyr,  who  lived  A.  D.  140,3  we  have  numerous 
and    very  celebrated  writings.     That  which   relates  to  this 

1)  Eccl.  Hist.  lib.  iii.  c.  39.  3)  I  adopt   the    arrangement  o 

2)  Ibid,   lib.   iii.    c.  29.     See    in     Clarke,  in  his  Succ.  of  Sacred  Literat. 
Dr.  Miller,   on   the    Min.   p.  97.     Dr.     vol.  i.  p.  95. 

Wilson's    Prim.  Govt,  of  the  Ch.  pp. 
13-15. 


CHAP.  III.]  PAPIAS    AND   JUSTIN    MARTYR.  367 

subject,  will  be  found  contained  in  his  Apology,  from  chapter 
eighty-five  to  eighty-eight.  The  moderator  of  the  christian 
assembly,  he  denominates  7roofo-To;c,  pro-estos,  or  presi- 
dent, by  whom,  as  is  allowed,  we  are  to  understand,  bishop. 
In  these  chapters,  says  Mr.  Powell,1  this  term,  and  this  only, 
as  designating  the  minister,  occurs  six  times ;  neither  the 
term  bishop  nor  presbyter  is  used  at  all.  The  word  simply 
means  a  president.  Reeves,  the  translator  of  Justin,  a  church- 
man, and  who  loses  no  opportunity  of  opposing  sectarians, 
allows,  in  his  notes  on  the  passage,  that  the  ■nQoeoTw:  of 
Justin,  the  probati  seniores  of  Tertullian,  the  majores  natu,  in 
Cyprian's  works,  (Ep.  seventy-five,)  and  the  nQoeaxmeg  nora- 
{Jvtsooi,  or  presiding  presbyters,  of  St.  Paul,  (1  Tim.  4:  17,) 
were  all  one  and  the  same.  Now  Tertullian,  Cyprian,  (or 
rather  Firmilian,  the  celebrated  bishop  of  Caesarea/in  Cappa- 
docia,)  and  St.  Paul,  all  mean  presbyters.  Their  language 
cannot  be  otherwise  interpreted  without  violence.  '  Presby- 
ter,' says  bishop  Jewel,  'is  expounded  in  latin,  by  natu 
major.'' 

According  to  Justin  Martyr,  therefore,  the  bishop,  who  was 
the  pastor  of  a  single  congregation,  and  therefore,  by  no 
possibility,  a  prelate,  was  also  a  presbyter.  As  such  he 
offered  up  prayers,  and  gave  thanks,  in  the  church ;  admin- 
istered the  Lord's  supper ;  delivered  discourses ;  and  gener- 
ally conducted  the  worship  of  the  congregation  ;  in  all  which 
duties  we  have  described  to  us  the  office  of  a  pastor,  but  not 
that  of  a  prelate.  Justin,  it  will  be  observed,  employs  the 
very  term,  so  commonly  applied  to  presbyters  throughout  the 
New  Testament,  and  calls  his  bishop  the  nqoeoxtag*  the  pres- 
byter who  presided,  the  moderator  or,  primus  inter  pares. 
This  is  admitted  by  Dr.  Heylin  himself,  who,  like  Balaam 
blessing  Israel,  when  he  would  fain  have  cursed  them,  estab- 
lishes a  presbyterian  parity  of  pastors,  while  he  is  most 
desirous  to  destroy  it,  by  making  the  bishop,  in  Justin  Martyr's 
time,  all  one  with  the  ordinary  preacher  of  God's  word,  and 
celebrator  of  the  eucharist.'3  Neither  is  there  any  colorable 
pretext  for  the  supposition  that  the  bread,  of  whose  distribu- 
tion, he  informs  us,  was  sent  by  the  deacons  to  other  congre- 
gations, and  not  to  the  absent  members.  This  evasion,  only 
shows  that  any  improbabilities  will  be  cheerfully  adopted, 
rather  than  yield  to  the  force  of  evidence,  when  it  is  subver- 
sive of  prelatic  claims.4 

1)  Powell  on  Apost.  Succ.  pp.  4)  On  this  objection,  see  Boyse's 
52:  53.  Anct.  Episcop.  pp.  115,  116.    Jame- 

2)  See  our  Lect.  on.  son's  Fund,  of  the  Hier.  p.  224. 

3)  Hist,  of  Episcop.  part  ii.  p.  39. 


368  THE    TESTIMONY    OP    IRENiEUS    IS  [BOOK  II. 

In  reading  Justin's  description  of  divine  worship,  we  might 
well  imagine  he  was  describing  the  services  of  a  presbyterian 
assembly.1  On  the  whole,  therefore,  we  may  conclude,  with 
Dr.  Wilson,2  that  'having  now  passed  the  middle  of  the 
second  century,  and  found  one  kind  only  of  elders,  and  these 
the  only  ministers  of  the  word,  we  may  infer  that  such  is  the 
fair  construction  of  the  Neiv  Testament,  on  the  ordinary  officers 
of  the  church.  The  innovations  which  we  are  soon  to  wit- 
ness in  their  gradual  progress,  were  unauthorized,  and,  conse- 
quently, mere  nullities.  Though  every  denomination  has  on 
some  point,  erred,  and  the  original  names  of  the  officers  have 
been  often  changed,  the  providence  of  God  has,  in  every  age, 
preserved  the  two  orders,  and  a  legitimate  administration.' 

§  2.     The  testimony  of  Irenams. 

The  next  writer,  from  whom  we  are  able  to  produce  any 
thing  bearing  upon  this  controversy,  is  Irenaeus,  who  was 
bishop  of  Lyons,  in  France,  A.  D.  178,  and  the  scholar  and 
admirer  of  Polycarp.3  After  Irenaeus,  according  to  Blondel, 
had  been  bishop  for  nine  years,  as  successor  to  Pothinus,  he 
is  expressly  denominated  the  presbyter  of  that  church,  in  the 
letter  addressed  by  the  martyrs  to  Eleutherius,  bishop  of 
Rome.4  They  here  inform  Eleutherius,  that  'if  righteous- 
ness could  give  a  due  place  and  rank,  they  should  commend  to 
him  Irenaeus  among  the  first,  as  a  presbyter  of  the  church, 
which  degree  he  had  obtained.'5  Bishop  Stillingfleet6  justly 
observes,  that  Blondel's  argument  does  not  lie  here,  that 
because  they  call  him  the  presbyter  of  the  church,  therefore, 
he  was  no  bishop ;  but  he  freely  acknowledges  him  to  have 
succeeded  Pothinus  there  in  his  bishopric.  But,  because, 
after  the  difference  arose  elsewhere,  between  bishops  and 
presbyters,  yet  they  called  him  by  the  name  of  presbyter,  it 
seems  very  improbable,  that  when  they  were  commending 
one  to  the  bishop  of  another  church,  they  should  make  use  of 
the  lowest  name  of  honor  then  appropriated  to  subject-pres- 
byters, which,  instead  of  commending,  were  a  great  debasing 

1)  Apol.  i.  pp.  95-97.  16-20.     Pierce's  Vind.  of  Dissent,  part 

2)  Prim.   Govt,  of  the    Ch.  p.  24.    iii.  ch.  i.  pp.  6S-72. 

See  on  the  testimony  of  Justin   Mar-  3)  Wake's  Apost.  Fathers, p.  149. 

tyr,  Dr.  Miller  on  the  Min.  pp.  101,  Eng.  ed. 

102.     Powell  on  Apost.  Succ.  pp.  52,  4)  Euseh.   Eccl.  Hist.  1.  v.  c.  4. 

53.     King's  Prim.   Christ,  part  ii.  ch.  Stillin°;fleet   Iren.  pp.  311,  312.     Dr. 

i.     Plea  for  Presbytery,  p.   260.     Dr.  Wilson's  Prim.  Govt.  p.  27. 
Wilson's  Prim.   Govt,  of  the  Ch.  pp.  5)  Euseb.  Hist.  1.  v.  c.  4. 

6)  Iren.  pp.  311,  312. 


CHAP.  III.]  IN    FAVOR    OF    PRESBYTERY.  369 

of  him,  if  they  had  looked  on  a  superior  order  above  those 
presbyters,  as  of  divine  institution,  and  thought  there  had 
been  so  great  a  distance  between  a  bishop  and  subject- 
presbyter,  as  we  are  made  to  believe  there  was.  Which  is, 
as  if  the  master  of  a  college,  in  one  university,  should  be  sent 
by  the  fellows  of  the  society  to  the  heads  of  the  other,  and 
should,  in  his  commendatory  letters  to  them,  be  styled  a  senior 
fellow  of  that  house.  This  was  the  case  of  Ireneeus ;  he  is 
supposed  to  be  bishop  of  Lyons ;  he  is  sent  by  the  church  of 
Lyons,  on  a  message  to  the  bishop  of  Rome ;  when,  notwith- 
standing his  being  bishop,  they  call  him  presbyter  of  that 
church,  when  there  were  other  presbyters,  who  were  not 
bishops.  What  could  any  one  imagine  by  the  reading  of  it, 
but  that  the  bishop  was  nothing  else  but  the  senior-presbyter, 
or  one  that  had  a  primacy  of  order  among  them,  but  no 
divine  right  to  a  power  of  jurisdiction,  over  his  fellow  pres- 
byters. 

"  In  order  that  the  important  testimony  of  this  writer  may  be 
justly  weighed,  we  will  bring  together  what  bears  upon  this 
matter.  Speaking  of  some  heretics,  he  says,1  '  when,  again, 
we  challenge  them  by  appealing  to  that  tradition,  which  is 
from  the  apostles,  which  is  preserved  in  the  churches  by  the 
successions  of  presbyters  ;  they  oppose  tradition,  and  say  that 
they,  being  wiser  not  only  than  the  presbyters,  but  than  the 
apostles,  have  found  out  the  uncorrupted  truth,  &c.  All, 
therefore,  who  would  see  the  truth,2  may  observe  in  every 
church  the  tradition  of  the  apostles  manifested  in  all  the 
world  ;  and  we  can  reckon  up  those  who  were  appointed 
bishops  in  the  churches  by  the  apostles,  and  who  were  their 
successors  to  our  time,  who  neither  taught  nor  knew  any  such 
thing  as  these  men  dream  of.  For  had  the  apostles  known 
any  hidden  mysteries,  which  they  had  a  mind  to  deliver  to 
such  as  were  perfect,  privately,  and  apart  from  the  rest,  they 
would  have  chiefly  delivered  them  to  those  to  whom  they 
committed  the  churches  themselves.  For  they  would  have 
them  to  be  very  perfect  and  unblamable  in  all  things,  whom 
they  left  as  successors,  delivering  to  them  their  own  place,  of 
being  teachers,  (or,  as  some  render  it,  their  own  place  of 
authority.)  But,  because  it  is  long  in  such  a  volume  as  this, 
to  reckon  up  the  succession  of  all  churches ;  by  pointing  out 
the  tradition  and  declared  faith  of  that  greatest,  and  most 
ancient  and  noted  church,  founded  at  Rome,  by  two  most 
glorious  apostles,  Peter  and  Paul,  which  she  has  from  the 

1)  Adv.  Haeres.  lib.  iii.  c.  Q.  2)  Ibid,  lib.  iii.  c.  3. 

47 


370  THE    TESTIMONY    OF    IRENJEUS    IS  [BOOK  II. 

apostles,  and  is  come  to  us  by  the  succession  of  bishops,  we 
confound  all  those,'  &c.  And  then  he  mentions  the  succession 
of  Linus,  Anacietus,  Clement,  Evaristus,  Alexander,  Sixtus, 
Telesphorus,  Hyginus,  Pius,  Anicetus,  Soter,  Elentherius; 
and  afterwards  Polycarp,  bishop  of  the  church  of  Smyrna. 

'  We  ought,'  he  again1  says,  'to  obey  those  presbyters  who 
are  in  the  church ;  those,  I  mean,  who  have  succession  from 
the  apostles,  as  we  have  shown,  who,  with  the  succession  of 
the  episcopate,  have  received,  according  to  the  good  pleasure 
of  the  Father,  the  sure  gift  of  truth.  .  .  .  But  they  who  are  looked 
upon  by  many  as  presbyters,  but  serve  their  own  pleasures, 
....  and  are  elated  with  pride,  at  their  exaltation  to  the 
chief  seat, .  .  shall  be  reproved  by  the  Word.  .  .  .  From  all 
such  it  behoves  us  to  stand  aloof,  and  to  cleave  to  those  who, 
as  I  have  said  before,  both  retain  the  doctrine  of  the  apostles, 
and,  with  the  order  of  the  presbyter^hip,  (or  as  Fevar- 
dentius  reads,  of  a  presbyter,)  exhibit  soundness  in  word,  and 
a  blameless  conversation.'  Having  described  wicked  pres- 
byters, he  adds,2  '  from  such  we  ought  to  depart,  but  to  adhere 
to  those  who  keep  the  doctrine  of  the  apostles,  and  with  the 
order  of  presbytery,  maintain  sound  doctrine,  and  a  blameless 
conversation,  &c.  Such  presbyters,  the  church  does  nourish, 
concerning  whom  the  prophet  also  saith,  I  will  give  thee 
princes  in  peace,  and  bishops  in  righteousness.  Of  whom 
our  Lord  also  said,  who,  therefore,  is  that  faithful,  and  good 
and  wise  servant,  whom  his  master  may  set  over  his  house, 
to  give  them  their  food  in  due  season  ? '  Again,  '  he,  that  is, 
the  apostle,  attributes  to  all  teachers,  that  succession  of  the 
church  that  is  from  the  apostles;  and  then  relates  what 
doctrine  he  had  received  from  a  certain  presbyter,  that  had 
received  it  from  such  as  saw  and  conversed  with  the  apos- 
tles.' Writing  to  Florinus,  he  says,  'these  opinions,  O  Flo- 
rinus,  the  presbyters  before  our  times,  the  disciples,  (or  first 
successors,)  of  the  apostles,  did  by  no  means  deliver  to  thee.'3 
After  alluding  to  Polycarp,  and  to  his  instructions  and 
discourses,  he  adds, 'I  can  testify  before  God,  that  if  that 
holy  and  apostolic  presbyter,  (Polycarp,)  had  heard  only 
such  a  thing,  he  would  instantly  have  reclaimed  and  stopt  his 
ears.'  Writing  to  Victor,  then  bishop  of  Rome,  on  the  subject 
of  the  Easter  controversy,  he  reminds  him,  that  '  he  ought  to 
follow  the  ancient  custom  of  the  presbyters,  whom  he  had 
succeeded,' alluding  to  Anicetus,  Pius,  Hyginus,  Telesphorus, 

1)  Adv.  Haeres.  1.  iv.  c.  43.  3)  Euseb.  Eccl.  Hist.  1.  v.  c.  39. 

2)  Ibid,  1.  iv.  c.  44. 


CHAP.   III.]  IN    FAVOR    OF    PRESBYTERY.  371 

and  Xystus,  whom  he  had  just  named,  and  whom  he  calls 
presbyters,  though  now  named  popes.1 

Now,  upon  the  review  of  these  passages  of  Irenaeus,  we 
may  plainly  see,  that  he  never  thought  bishops  a  distinct  order 
from  presbyters.  That  christian  doctrine,  which,  in  some 
passages,  he  supposes  handed  down  to  his  age,  by  the  succes- 
sion of  bishops,  in  others,  he  asserts  to  be  transmitted  by  the 
succession  of  presbyters.  Nay,  he  ascribes  the  succession  of 
episcopacy  to  the  presbyters ;  he  applies  to  presbyters  that 
passage  of  the  prophet,  wherein  he  speaks  of  God's  giving 
them  princes  in  peace,  and  bishops  in  righteousness.  And 
having  distinguished  between  apostles,  and  prophets,  and 
teachers,  he  ascribes  this  succession  from  the  apostles  to 
teachers,  who  were,  as  we  have  seen,  presbyters.2  '  What, 
strange  confusion,'  says  Stillingfleet,3  'must  this  raise  in  any 
one's  mind,  that  seeks  for  a  succession  of  episcopal  power 
above  presbyters  from  the  apostles,  by  the  testimony  of 
Irenaeus,  when  he  so  plainly  attributes  both  the  succession  to 
presbyters,  and  the  episcopacy  too,  which  he  speaks  of?  Did 
Irenaeus  think  that  bishops,  in  a  superior  order  to  presbyters, 
were  derived  by  an  immediate  succession  from  the  apostles, 
and  yet  call  the  presbyters  by  the  name  of  bishops  ? ' 

To  evade  the  irresistible  force  of  these  testimonies,  what  are 
the  artifices  of  our  opponents  ?  Two  very  desperate  shifts.4 
The  one  is,  that  when  Irenaeus  speaks  of  the  succession  of 
presbyters,  he  means  old  men,  and  not  officers  of  the  church 
at  all,  and  thus,  rather  than  have  presbyters  to  be  the  success- 
ors of  the  apostles,  we  are  to  have  the  new  order  erected  of 
old  men.  The  other  is,  that  Irenaeus  distinguishes  between 
two  kinds  of  presbyters,  some  of  whom  were,  and  others  were 
not,  the  successors  of  the  apostles.  So  that  prelatists  are  willing 
to  give  us  any  possible  number  of  orders,  if  thereby  they  can 
throw  obstacles  in  the  way  of  a  conclusion.  But  this  imag- 
ination is  founded  on  the  ignorance  of  our  views.  We  do 
not  deny,5  'but  that  there  was,  in  Irenaeus's  time,  a  primacy 
of  order,  among  these  presbyters  or  bishops,  that  one  of  them 
had  the  first  rank  and  place,  among  his  colleagues  of  the  same 
order  and  office.  And  that  is  a  sufficient  reason  for  his  only 
mentioning  single  persons,  when  he  reckons  up  the  succession 
of  the  bishops  of  Rome.  But  the  reckoning  the  succession 
by  such  single  persons,  will  never,  as  we  have  seen,  prove 

1)  Ibid,  1.  v.  c.  24,  and  Riddle's  4)  See   Boyse's   Anct.  Christ,  p. 
Chr.  Antiq.p.230,  Note.  267,  &c. 

2)  Boyse's  Anct.  Episcop.  p  265.  5)  To  use  the  reasoning  of  Boyse, 

3)  Irenicum,  pp.  307,  308.  in  Anct.  Christ,  pp.  267,  268. 


372  THE    TESTIMONY    OF    VICTOR,  [l300K  II. 

them  to  be  of  a  different  office  and  order  from  their  colleagues. 
It  seems,  therefore,  a  just  inference  from  this  letter  of  the 
church  of  Lyons,  compared  with  what  has  been  cited  from 
Irenasus,  that  in  the  Gallic  churches, 1  in  his  time,  the  senior 
presbyter  was  not  then  distinguished  from  his  colleagues  by  the 
name  of  bishop,  but  that  both  name  and  office  were  common 
to  him  with  his  colleagues.  Both  were  alike,  according  to 
Irenasus,  successors  of  the  apostles.2  Mr.  Thorndike  is  oblig- 
ed to  make  this  admission.  '  Irenaeus.'  he  says,3  'that  is  wont 
to  appeal  to  the  succession  of  bishops,  to  evidence  that  which 
the  church  then  believed  to  have  come  from  the  apostles,  here 
referreth  himself  to  the  presbyters,  for  the  same  purpose,  affirm- 
ing, that  they  succeeded  the  apostles,  without  doubt,  calling 
the  bishops  by  the  name  of  '  presbyters,'  in  regard  of  the  office 
common  to  both.  Thus  are  both  ranks  comprised,  in  one 
name  of  7r<3osrwre?,  in  the  first  canon  of  the  council  of  Anti- 
ochia.'4 

§  5.     The  testimony  of  Victor,  bishop  of  Home,   Clement 
Alexandrinus,  and  Tertullian. 

Victor,  bishop  of  Rome,  A.  D.  192,  thus  writes  :5  'As  thy 
holy  fraternity  were  taught  by  those  presbyters,  who  had  seen 
the  apostles  in  the  flesh,  and  governed  the  church  until  thy 
time,  (we  find)  the  catholic  church  celebrate  pasch,  not  on 
the  fourteenth  of  the  moon,  with  the  Jews,  but  from  the  fif- 
teenth day  to  the  twenty-first.  Therefore,  let  thy  fraternity 
write  to  the  presbyters  of  Gaul,  that  they  observe  pasch,  not 
as  the  Jews,  who  deny  Christ,  but  with  the  followers  of  the 
apostles,  and  preachers  of  the  truth.  The  college  of  the  breth- 
ren salute  thee  ;  salute  the  brethren  who  are  with  thee  in  the 
Lord.  Eubulus,  one  of  our  college,  who  carries  this  epistle 
to  Vienna,  is  ready  to  live  and  die  with  thee.'  This  epistle 
was  sent,  by  Victor  and  his  colleagues,  to  Dionysius,  bishop 
of  Vienna  ;  and  from  this  passage,  it  is  evident,  to  a  demon- 
stration, that  presbyters  were  the  successors  of  the  apostles, 

1)  Seeabove.  Presb.  Def.  p.  127 ;     Scbism,  p.  139; 

2)  See  Pearson  in  art.  Bishop,  in  Blair's  Waldenses,  vol.  i.  pp.  28,  29,34, 
Rees's  Cyclop.  35,  142;  Div.  Right  of  the  Ministry, 

3)  Prim.  Govt,  of  the  Ch.  pp.77,  part  ii.  pp.  115-117;  Corbet's  Re- 
78.  mains,  p.  113;  Plea  for  Presbytery,  p. 

4)  On  the  testimony  of  Irenasus,  258,  &c;  Dr.  Wilson's  Prim.  Govt,  of 
see  fully  given  in  Dr.  Miller  on  the  the  Ch. pp.29,  35;  in  Natali.  Alexandr. 
Min.  pp.  98-100,  325;     Bib.   Report,  Eccl.  Dissert,  pp.  69,  71. 

1830,  p.  53  ;  Powell  on  Ap.  Succ.p.  53;  5)  Epis.  ad  Dion,  in  Ayton's  Con- 

stit.  of  the  Ch.  p.  559. 


CHAP.  III.]  CLEMENT,    AND    TERTULLIAN.  373 

the  constant  rulers  of  the  church,  from  them  to  the  days  of 
Victor,  who  lived  in  the  close  of  the  second  century. 

Clement  Alexandrinus,  who  lived  A.  D.  194,  was  a  pres- 
byter in  the  church  at  Alexandria,  and  president  of  the  theo- 
logical seminary  in  that  city,  where  he  had  the  celebrated 
Origen  as  one  of  his  pupils.  In  his  remaining  work,  he  twice 
enumerates  the  officers  of  the  church,  under  the  names,  bish- 
ops, presbyters,  and  deacons ;  but  this,  as  we  have  already 
shown,  is  perfectly  consistent  with  the  doctrine  of  presbyteri- 
ans,  who  use  these  very  terms  for  the  same  purpose.  That 
he  identifies  bishops  and  presbyters,  as  the  same  general  min- 
isterial order,  would  appear  to  be  incontrovertible.  In  the  very 
paragraph  in  which  he  once  makes  the  above  enumeration,1 
and  in  allusion  to  the  same  heavenly  progression,  he  repeats 
the  order,  under  the  two  denominations  of  presbyters  and 
deacons,2  while  in  the  other,  he  places  presbyters  first,  and 
bishops  second,  and  widows  fourth.3  Though  only  a  presby- 
ter, he  yet  styles  himself,  a  governor  of  the  church. 4  He  ranks 
himself  among  the  shepherds,  or  pastors.5  He  speaks  of  pres- 
byters imposing  hands,  and  giving  their  blessing.6  Presby- 
ters, according  to  Clement,  were  intrusted  with  a  dignified 
ministry.  He  expressly  identifies  bishop  and  presbyter,  by 
using  the  one  term  for  the  other,  in  the  passage  in  1  Tim.  5 : 
14. 7  Presbyters,  according  to  him,  occupy  the  chief  seat  on 
earth,  and  shall  sit  down  among  the  four  and  twenty  thrones 
in  heaven.8  He  repeatedly  enumerates  only  presbyters  and 
deacons,  as  the  ministering  officers  of  the  church.  The  pres- 
byter, with  Clement  Alexandrinus,  was  the  highest  order  of 
the  ministry,  and  occupied  the  chief  seat,  being  clothed  with 
the  chief  dignity  in  the  church,  and  was,  therefore,  the  true 
and  proper  successor  of  the  apostles.9 

Tertullian,  who  lived  A.  D.  200,  and  died  A.  D.  220,  is  the 
next  writer,  whose  testimony  is  produced  on  this  question. 
To  a  candid  inquirer  into  the  opinions  of  this  father,  in  regard 
to  the  ministerial  function,  it  must  appear  evident,  that  they 
were  very  loose  and  indeterminate.      This  is  the  opinion  of 

1)  Stromat.  lib.  vi.  see  in  Dr.  Mil-  9)  See  on  this  testimony  of  Clem- 
ler  on  Min.  p.  104.  ent  Alexandrinus,  Dr.  Miller  on  the 

2)  Such  is  the  opinion  of  King,  in  Min.  pp.  103-106  ;    Anderson's   Def. 
his  Prim.  Church,  p.  72.  of  Presb.  p.  184;    King's  Prim.  Ch.  p, 

3)  Pajdagog.  lib.  iii.  72;    Plea  for  Presbytery,  p.  260 ;    Dr 

4)  Paedagog.  lib.  i.  Wilson's    Prim.     Govt.    pp.    36-40 

5)  Ibid,  lib.  iii.  Pierce's  Vind.  of  Dissent,  part  iii.  ch 

6)  Stromat.  lib.  iii.  i.  p.  73,  &c;  Boyse's  Anct.  Christ,  pp 

7)  Ibid,  lib.  vi.  122-125;     Blondel,  in  Natali.  Alex 

8)  Ibid,  lib.  i.  iii.  vi.  andr.  p.  73. 


374  THE    TESTIMONY    OF    TERTULLIAN  [fiOOK     II. 

bishop  Kaye,  in  his  learned  work  on  the  writings  of  this 
father.1  'But  how  clearly  soever  the  distinction  between  the 
bishops  and  the  other  orders  of  clergy  may  be  asserted  in 
the  writings  of  Tertullian,  they  afford  us  little  assistance  in 
ascertaining  wherein  this  distinction  consisted.'  Such,  also, 
are  the  views  of  the  episcopalian  church  historian,  Wadding- 
ton,2  and  of  archbishop  Potter.3 

In  his  most  celebrated  work,4  his  Apology,  whilst  describing 
the  order  and  government  of  the  church,  he  says,  '  President 
probati  quique  seniores,  &c.  Approved  elders,  or  presby- 
ters, preside  amongst  us  ;  having  received  that  honor,  not  by 
money,  but  by  the  suffrages  of  their  brethren,'  cap.  39,5 
Reeves,  who  was,  as  has  been  remarked,  a  rigid  churchman, 
in  his  note  on  the  place,  says,  '  The  presiding  elders  here  are 
undoubtedly  the  same  with  the  ngoeuTuig  in  Justin  Martyr.' 
Here  the  presbyters  preside.  One,  as  primus  presbyter,  as  the 
highest  priest  or  highest  presbyter,  presided  over  the  rest,  and, 
for  distinction's  sake,  was  called  bishop.  So  in  another  very 
noted  passage  in  his  work  against  heretics,  he  speaks  of  the 
apostolical  churches,  '  over  which  the  apostolical  chairs  still 
presided.'  The  order  was  usual,  in  the  meetings  of  ministers 
in  the  primitive  church,  for  the  ministers'  chairs  to  be  set  in  a 
semicircle.  The  middle  chair  was  raised  a  little  above  the 
rest.  The  highest  presbyter,  or  priest,  sat  in  this,  and  the 
other  presbyters,  or  priests,  sat  round  him.  The  deacons  were 
never  allowed  chairs;  they  always  stood.  Now  these  were 
the  chairs  Tertullian  means.  The  presbyters  sat  in  them, 
and  thus,  in  council,  presided  over  the  church  in  common.  So 
says  Jerome,  '  the  church  was  governed  by  the  common  coun- 
cil of  the  presbyters.1  Here,  then,  presbyters  are  apostolical 
successors,  sit  in  apostolical  chairs,  and  are  the  same 
order  with  bishops.1  Again,  Tertullian  tells  us,  5  'that  they 
received  the  sacrament  of  the  eucharist  from  the  hands  of 
none  but  such  as  presided  in  their  assemblies.'  Again,  he 
says,6  '  that  before  they  went  to  the  water,  to  be  baptized,  they 
first,  in  the  church,  under  the  hand  of  the  president,  (or  ruler 
of  the  church,)  professed  their  renouncing  the  devil,  &c.'  And 
further,  that  the  christians,  in  his  time,  received  the  sacrament 

1)  The  Eccl.  Hist,  of  the  2d  and     Constituit,  ecclesia  uactoritas  ;  lib.  de 
.3d  Cent,  ill ustrat.  from  Tertull.  Camb.    Exhort.  Castit.  cap.  7. 

1S29,  p.  234.  4)  Powell  on   Apost.    Succ.  pp. 

2)  Waddington's  Hist.  p.  35  ;    in     58,  59. 

Schism,  p.  143.  5)  De  Corona,  c.  3.  opp.  102. 

3)  Potter  on  Ch.    Govt.  p.  154  ;  6)  Ibid. 
Differentiam  inter  ordinem  et  Plebem 


CHAP.  III.]  AGAINST    PRELACY.  375 

thrice  every  week.1  '  Now  from  "these  passages2  of  Tertul- 
lian,'  says  Mr.  Boyse,  'we  may  justly  thus  argue.  Either 
there  was,  in  Tertullian's  time,  no  distinction  between  bishops 
and  presbyters,  or  there  was.  If  there  was  not,  this  point  of 
primitive  antiquity  must  be  wholly  given  up ;  if  there  was, 
either  Tertullian,  by  these  probati  seniores,  approved  elders, 
these  presidentes  and  antistites,  that  had  the  presidency  and 
chief  rule  in  their  religious  assemblies,  intends  bishops  or  pres- 
byters, or  both.  If  presbyters  only,  then  where  shall  we  find 
any  such  thing  in  Tertullian  as  a  bishop,  as  distinct  from 
presbyters  at  all  ?  And  if  these  were  presbyters,  prelatists 
must  drop  one  of  their  distinguishing  characters  of  episcopal 
power,  namely,  excommunication,  since,  in  passing  that  sol- 
emn sentence,  Tertullian  tells  us,  these  approved  elders  did 
preside.  Nay,  if  we  suppose  that  Tertullian,  by  presidents, 
includes  both  bishops  and  presbyters,  it  will  still  follow  that 
he  makes  the  power  of  inflicting  church  censures  common  to 
both,  and  supposes  bolh  to  be  of  the  same  order  or  office, 
though  the  bishop  might  have  the  like  superiority  as  a  rector 
among  his  curates.  On  the  other  hand,  if  Tertullian  mean 
bishops,  as  distinguished  from  presbyters,  (as  I  shall  freely 
own  he  does,  in  several  other  places,  suppose  there  was  some 
distinction  between  them,)  then,  it  is  evident,  they  could  be 
no  more  than  parochial  bishops.  Now  we  have  such  bishops, 
and  it  is  ridiculous  to  reproach  us  for  rejecting  primitive  epis- 
copacy, or  to  allege  this  primitive  parochial  episcopacy,  for 
the  defence  of  the  divine  right  of  that  diocesan  episcopacy 
that  is  destructive  of  it,  and  particularly  deprives  these  primi- 
tive bishops  of  the  power  of  excommunication  that  then 
belonged  to  them 

It  must  be  admitted  that  Tertullian  utterly  rejected 
the  claim  of  divine  right,  which  is  essential  to  the  pre- 
latic  argument.  Thus  he  speaks,3  '  The  highest  priest, 
who  is  the  bishop,  has  the  right  of  administering  baptism. 
Then  the  presbyters  and  deacons,  yet  not  without  the  authority 
of  the  bishops,  because  of  the  honor  of  the  church.  This 
being  preserved, peace  is  preserved.  Otherwise  the  right 
belongs  even  to  laymen.  However,  the  laity  ought  especially 
to  submit,  humbly  and  modestly,  to  the  discipline  or  ecclesi- 
astical regulations  of  the  church  in  these  matters,  and  not 
assume  the  office  of  the  bishop,  seeing  their  superiors,  the 
presbyters  and  deacons,  submit  to  the  same.     Let  it  suffice 

1)  De  Oratione,  c.  14.  op.  pp.  135,  3)  De  Baptismo,  cap.  17,  in  Wks. 
136.                                                               p.  225.  Ed.  Parnel. 

2)  To  use  the  argument  of  Mr. 
Boyse,  Anct.  Christ  p.  118. 


376  THE    TESTIMONY    OF    TERTULLIAN  [BOOK  II. 

that  you  use  your  liberty  in  cases  of  necessity,  when  the 
condition  of  the  person,  or  the  circumstances  of  time  or  place, 
compel  you  to  it.'  De  Baptismo,  c.  17.  Again,  he  says,1 
'  We  shall  be  foolish  if  we  suppose  that  what  is  not  lawful  to 
priests  is  lawful  to  laymen.  Are  not  those  of  us  who  are 
laics,  priests  ?  It  is  written,  '  He  hath  made  us  kings  and 
priests  to  God  and  his  father.'  The  authority  of  the  church 
has  appointed  the  difference  between  the  order  and  the  peo- 
ple, and  the  dignity  is  sacred,  where  there  is  an  assembly  of 
the  order,  so,  ivhere  there  is  no  assembly  of  the  ecclesiastical 
order,  you  both  offer  (that  is,  in  the  eucharist,)  and  baptize, 
and  are  alone  a  priest  to  yourself.  Moreover,  where  there  are 
three,  there  is  a  church,  although  they  be  laymen.  For  each 
one  lives  by  his  own  faith,  nor  is  there  respect  of  persons  with 
God,  since  not  the  hearers  of  the  law,  but  the  doers  are  justi- 
fied by  God,  as  the  apostle  says.  Therefore,  if  you  have  in 
yourself  the  rights  of  a  priest,  ivhere  necessity  requires  it,  it  is 
right  that  you  should  also  conform  to  the  discipline  befitting 
a  priest,  where  it  may  be  necessary  to  have  the  rights  of  a 
priest.'  '  Now,  whatever  may  be  thought  of  this  passage,' 
says  the  Rev.  Mr.  Goode,2  '  in  other  respects,  one  thing  is 
clear,  that  Tertullian  had  no  notion  that  consecration,  by  a 
bishop  or  presbyter,  was  essential  to  the  participation  of  the 
eucharist,  but  distinctly  held  that,  in  their  absence,  it  was 
quite  competent  to  a  layman  to  celebrate  it,  which  shows  that 
he  regarded  it  merely  as  a  matter  of  ecclesiastical  order .^  St. 
Jerome  also  admits  Tertullian's  maxim,  that  what  a  man 
hath  received  he  may  impart,  '  which,'  says  Dr.  Pusey, '  would 
justify  presbyterian  ordination.'3 

Moreover,  while  Tertullian  appeals  against  the  heretics  to 
the  succession  of  faithful  ministers  found  in  the  orthodox 
churches,  yet  he  is  very  far  from  placing  this  succession  as 
prelates  do  in  a  personal  succession  of  individual  men.  The 
true  succession,  according  to  Tertullian,  is  to  be  found  mainly 
in  true  doctrine,  the  very  last  standard  by  which  the  claims  of 
the  prelatico-Romish  succession  could  bear  to  be  tested.  Thus 
he  affirms,4  'But  if  the  heretics  feign  or  fabricate  such  a 

SUCCESSION,  THIS   WILL  NOT    HELP  THEM.       For  their  DOCTRINE 

itself,  compared  with  the  doctrine  of  the  apostles,  will,  by  its 
own  diversity  and  contrariety,  pronounce  against  them,  that 
it  had  not  as  its  author  any  apostle  or  apostolical  man  ;  for  as 

1)  De  Exhort,    castit.  c.  7;   De  3)  Library  of  the  Fathers,  vol.  x., 
Padicit,  c.  21  ;  See  Goode's  Div.  Rule,  Tertullian's  Wks.  p.  xvi.  preface, 
vol.  ii.  pp.  52,  53.                                                4)  De  Prescript,  c.  32  and  33,  in 

2)  Div.  Rule  of  Faith,  vol.  ii.  pp.  Wks.  p.  210. 
52,  53. 


CHAP.  III.]      TESTIMONY  OF  HIPPOLYTUS  AND  OTHERS.  377 

there  was  no  difference  among  the  apostles  in  their  doctrine, 
so  neither  did  any  apostolical  men  teach  any  thing  contrary 
to  them,  except  those  who  divided  from  the  apostles,  and 
preached  differently.  To  this  form  of  trial  will  appeal 
be  made  by  those  churches  henceforward  daily  established, 
which,  though  they  have  neither  any  of  the  apostles,  nor  any 
apostolical  men,  for  their  founders,  yet  all  agreeing  in  the 
same  faith,  are,  from  this  consanguinity  of  doctrine,  to  be 
esteemed  not  less  apostolical  than  the  former.' 

Our  conclusion,  therefore,  is,  that,  in  the  time  of  Tertullian, 
who  stood,  as  Neander  remarks,  on  the  boundary  between 
two  different  epochs  in  the  development  of  the  church,  there 
was  a  growing  elevation  of  the  presiding  elder,  or  presbyter- 
bishop,  to  which,  however,  a  powerful  opposition  still  existed.1 
It  also  appears  that,  even  then,  the  bishop  was  but  a  presby- 
terian  pastor,  having  a  presidency  over  other  pastors  and 
officers,  and  the  church  generally;  and  that  presbyters  were 
therefore  still  regarded  as  the  true  successors  of  the  apostles. 
And  of  this  opinion  was  archbishop  Usher.'2 

§  4.     The   testimony  of  Hippolylus,    Origen,   and   Gregory 
Thaumaturgus. 

Hippolytus,  probably  of  Arabia,  flourished  about  A.  D. 
220.  In  reference  to  his  writings,  Dr.  Wilson  remarks,3 
'  The  apostolic  tradition,  being  indeed  a  modification  from 
the  eighth  book  of  the  apostolical  constitutions,  merits  equal 
contempt,  and  carries  its  obvious  grounds  of  condemnation 
on  its  face.  Yet  was  it  written  when  bishops  were  parochial, 
commissioned  without  imposition  of  hands,  when  a  pres- 
bytery was  in  every  church,  when  the  presbyters  were  all 
preachers,  and  the  deacons  served.'  The  tract  '  Against  the 
Heresy  of  a  certain  Noetus,'  the  patripassion,  contains  much 
good  sense,  and  has  claims  of  genuineness.  In  the  first  par- 
agraph Noetus  is  said  to  have  affirmed,  that  Christ  was  the 
father,  and  that  the  father  himself  suffered  ;  that  Noetus  was 
Moses;  and  his  brother,  Aaron;  and  that  'the  presbyters, 
having  heard  these  things,  and  cited  him,  they  examined  him 
before  the  church.'      He  denied,  but  afterwards  defended, 

1)  Neander's  Hist,  of  Ch.  Rel.  Anderson's  Defence,  p.  184 ;  Plea  for 
vol.  l.  p.  199.  Presbytery,  p.  262 ;  Dr.  Wilson's  Prim. 

2)  See  his  Reduction  of  Episco-  Govt. of  the  Ch.  pp.  40-44;  Jameson's 
pacy  to  Presb.  Govt.  Lond.  1656  ;  on  Cyp.  Isot.  433,450;  Baxter's  Disput. 
the  testimony  of  Tertullian,  see  Dr.     93-95. 

Miller  on  Min.  p.  Ill,  &c;  Schism,  p.  3)  Prim.  Govt.  pp.  63,  64. 

141;  Powell  on  Apost.  Succ.  pp.56  -  5S ; 

48 


378  TESTIMONY  OF  ORIGEN  AND  GREGORY  [BOOK  II. 

openly,  his  opinions.  '  The  presbyters  summoned  him,  a 
second  time,  condemned,'  and  '  cast  him  out  of  the  church.' 
If  this  be  a  part  of  the  writings  of  Hippolytus  against  heretics, 
mentioned  by  Eusebius,  Jerome,  and  Photius,  and  quoted, 
without  name,  by  Epiphanius,  it  accords  with  all  antecedent 
evidence,  and  evinces,  that  the  presbytery  in  a  church,  then, 
had  the  power  of  citing,  trying,  and  excommunicating 
heretics. 

Origen  flourished  about  the  year  A.  D.  230,  and  lived  a 
presbyter.  His  views  on  the  subject  before  us,  as  far  as  they 
can  be  known  from  his  imperfect  remains,  are  nearly  similar 
to  those  of  Tertullian.  He  speaks  of  one  general  order  of  the 
ministry,  and  of  bishops,  as  distinguished  from  other  pres- 
byters, by  their  ecclesiastical  dignity  and  power.  He  nowhere 
allows  them  to  be  a  distinct  order,  having  any  inherent  pre- 
eminence and  authority.  The  custom  of  fixed  presidents 
was,  in  his  day,  evidently  progressing  fast  towards  its  con- 
summation in  the  fixed  order  of  prelates.  The  following  are 
quotations  from  his  writings,  from  which  it  may  be  clearly 
deduced,  that  bishops  and  presbyters  were  the  same  order, 
and,  therefore,  that  presbyters  are  the  ministerial  successors 
of  the  apostles.  He  says  the  presbyters  preside  over  the 
church  too.  Thus  addressing  his  hearers,  in  Horn.  7,  on 
Jeremiah,  he  says,  '  We  of  the  clerical  order,  who  preside 
over  you.1  Now  every  one  knows,  that  Origen  was  never 
any  thing  more  than  a  presbyter.  Speaking,  in  another  place, 
of  the  ambition  of  some  persons  to  be  great  in  the  church,  he 
says,  '  They  first  desire  to  be  deacons,  but  not  such  as  the 
scripture  describes,  but  such  as  devour  widows'  houses,  and 
for  pretence  make  long  prayers,  and,  therefore,  shall  receive 
a  heavier  judgment.  Such  deacons,  consequently,  will  go 
about  to  seize  the  high  chairs  of  presbyters,  primas  cath^e- 
dras.  Some,  also,  not  content  with  that,  attempt  more,  in 
order  that  they  may  be  called  bishops,  that  is,  rabbi;  but 
they  ought  to  understand,  that  a  bishop  must  be  blameless, 
and  have  the  rest  of  the  qualities  described  there,  (Titus,  1 : 
6,  &c.,)  so  that,  though  men  should  not  give  such  a  one  the 
name  of  bishop,  yet  he  will  be  a  bishop  before  God?1  This 
is  the  general  style  of  Origen,  on  this  subject,  and  the  sub- 
stance of  what  occurs  in  his  works  on  the  matter.  It  is  clear 
enough,  that  Jerome  has  given  us  the  sense  of  Origen,  as 
well  as  of  the  rest  of  the  ancients.  He  was  perfectly  ac- 
quainted with  Origen's  opinion,  and  translated  many  of  his 

1)  Tract  24,  in  Matt.  23. 


CHAP.  III.]  IN    FAVOR    OF    PRESBYTERY.  379 

works.  Bishops  and  presbyters,  with  Origen,  were  the  same- 
order ;  they  ruled  the  church,  in  common,  the  presbyters 
presiding,  with  the  bishop,  he  having  a  higher  chair,  and 
being  distinguished  by  the  name  of  bishop.1  We  only  add, 
that,  speaking  of  the  angels  in  the  Apocalypse,  he  says,  that 
'  certain  ruling  presbyters  in  the  churches  were  called  angels, 
by  John,  in  1he  apocalypse.'2 

Gregory  Thaumaturgus  was  one  of  the  pupils  of  Origen, 
and  bishop  of  Neocsesarea.  He  was  denominated  Thauma- 
turgus, or  the  wonder-worker,  from  his  supposed  power  of 
working  miracles.  His  life  is  written  by  Gregory,  bishop  of 
Nyssa.  He  gives  the  following  account,  as  it  is  translated 
by  bishop  Burnet,3  of  his  introduction  into  the  christian  min- 
istry.4 '  Being  much  set  on  the  study  of  philosophy,  he  was 
afraid  of  engaging  in  the  pastoral  charge,  and,  therefore, 
avoided  all  occasions  in  which  he  might  have  been  laid  hold 
on,  and  ordained  ;  which,  Phedimns,  a  neighboring  bishop, 
observing,  though  Gregory  was  then  distant  three  days'  jour- 
ney from  him,  he  did,  by  prayer,  dedicate  him  to  the  service 
of  God,  at  Neocoesarea,  where  there  were,  then,  but  seventeen 
christians  ;  to  which  the  other  submitted,  and  came  and  serv- 
ed there.  Whether  he  received  any  new  orders,  is  but  du- 
biously and  darkly  expressed  by  that  author.' 

This  account  may  be  considered  a  commentary  on  the 
opinions  of  Gregory,  and  the  custom  of  the  age.  It  is  a 
further  and  explicit  proof  of  the  fact,  that  nothing  like  the 
views  attached  by  prelatists  to  the  sacred  orders,  were  then 
prevalent  in  the  church.  Gregory  was  made  a  bishop  of  a 
small  parish,  and  while  there  were  no  more  than  seventeen 
christians  '  in  Neocaesarea  and  the  whole  neighborhood.'5  He 
was  also  the  sole  pastor,  and,  therefore,  of  necessity,  we  must 
conclude,  that  the  only  distinctive  importance  ihen  attached 
to  the  office  of  bishop,  was  when  there  were  more  ministers 
in  the  same  church  than  one,  and  when  one  presided  among 
them.  At  his  death,  Gregory  said  he  had  but  seventeen 
christians  in  his  charge  when  he  was  ordained.  His  episco- 
pal authority  could,  therefore,  have  been  neither  over  pres- 

1)  Powell  on  Apost.  Succ.  3)  Hist,  of  Rights  of  Princes,  p.  9. 

2)  On  the  testimony  of  Origen,  see  4)  Oratio  in  Greg.  Thaum  ;  see 
Powell  on  Ap.  Succ.  p.  60;  Ander-  also,  Basil  Mag.  1.  de  Spir.  Sanct.  c. 
son's  Def.  pp.  185,  186;  Dr.  Wilson's  19.  Rom.  Breviar.  die  15,  Novemb. 
Govt,  of  the  Ch.  pp.  65-6S  ;  Ayton's  Menolog.  Gisec.  in  Wks.of  Greg  Neo- 
Constit.of  the  Ch.  of  Christ,  p.  566;  ces.     Paris,  1662. 

Jameson's  Cyprianus  Isotimus,  pp.396,  5)   Clarke's    Success,    of    Sacred 

400,407,408,410;  Blondel,  in  Natali.     Lit.  vol.  i.  p.  173. 
Alexandr.  p.  76. 


380  THE    TESTIMONY    OF    CYPRIAN  [BOOK  II. 

byters,  for  his  only  subordinate  was  one  deacon  ;  nor  diocesan, 
for  he  had  the  oversight  of  no  more  than  seventeen  people. 
This  fact,  which  is  in  perfect  accordance  with  the  history  of 
the  church  prior  to  this  period,  evinces,  that  there  were  but 
two  orders,  one  to  preach  and  rule,  and  the  other  to  serve.1 

§  5.     The  testimony  of  Cyprian,  Firmilian,  and  Novatus. 

Cyprian,  the  martyr,  bishop  of  Carthage,  A.  D.  248,  is  our 
next  witness.  We  have  carefully  examined  his  writings,  and 
we  cannot  come  to  any  other  conclusion  than  that,  while,  in 
his  day,  there  was  a  perceptible  increase  in  the  power  and 
assumptions  of  the  bishops,  they  were,  still,  parochial  presi- 
dents ;  they  still  regarded  the  presbyters  as  their  coequals,  in 
point  of  ministerial  order,  whilst  the  government  of  the  church 
was  still  in  the  hands  of  the  presbytery,  in  conjunction  with 
the  people. 

That  a  change  had  taken  place  in  the  character  of  the 
church,  and  in  its  ecclesiastical  system,  in  the  age  of  Cyprian, 
every  one  must  admit.  This  resulted,  first,  from  the  fact,  that 
Cyprian  and  his  compeers  were  wholly  penetrated  by  the 
notion  that  the  Jewish  hierarchy  was  the  model  of  the  chris- 
tian ministry  and  church.2  Secondly,  from  the  doctrine  that 
the  principle  of  unity  was  placed  in  the  bishop  alone,  without 
whose  authority  nothing  could  be  done  in  the  church,  and  by 
which  the  bishop  was  substituted  for  Christ ;  and,  thirdly, 
from  the  close  connection  of  the  bishops  with  one  another,  in 
their  synodical  assemblies,  since  by  thus  acting  in  concert, 
they  were  able  to  triumph  over  the  opposition  of  the  presby- 
ters, who  were  obliged  to  carry  on  their  struggles  in  separate 
and  disjointed  efforts.3  The  power  and  activity  of  Cyprian 
contributed  much  to  promote  this  victory,  and  to  establish 
those  views,  by  which,  as  Dr.  Nolan  candidly  acknowledges, 
'  a  total  revolution  has  been  eventually  effected  in  the  eccle- 
siastical discipline.'4 

That  there  existed,  therefore,  in  Cyprian's  age,  a  species  of 
episcopacy,  we  do  not  deny,  and  that  the  claims  and  powers 

1 )  Dr.  Wilson's  Prim.  Govt.  p.  85;  canons  of  the  Synod  which  met  then  ; 

on  the  testimony  of  Gregory  Thauma-  (Can.  13  ;)  see  Clarkson's  Prim.  Episc. 

turgus,  see  Anderson's  Defence,  p.  186;  p.  90. 

Clarke's  Succ.  of  Sacred  Lit.  vol.  i.  p.  2)  Neander's  Hist,  of  the  Chr.  Rel. 

173 ;  Dr.  Wilson's  Prim.  Govt,  of  the  vol.  i.  pp.  197,  198. 
Ch.  p.   84;    Baxter's  Disput.  on    Ch.  3)  Neander,  as  above,  p.  195. 

Govt.  p.  93;  Corbet's  Remains,  p.  103.  4)   Cath.  Char,  of  Christ,  p.  138; 

There  was  but  one  church  in  Neocaes-  see  also,  pp.   100-103,132-134,  179, 

area,  in  A.  D.  376,  as  appears  from  the  180. 


CHAP.  III.]  AGAINST    PRELACY.  3S1 

of  bishops  had  considerably  advanced  beyond  those  of  the 
previous  age  we  also  admit.  But,  after  all,  the  episcopacy 
of  the  Cyprianic  age  can  no  more  be  called  the  prelacy  of 
modern  times,  than  an  infant  can  be  called  a  man.  It  was 
parochial  episcopacy,  abused  to  the  undue  exaltation  of  the 
presiding  officer.  This  we  will  show  by  proving  that  the 
church  over  which  bishops  then  presided,  was  not  a  diocese, 
but  a  congregation ;  and,  secondly,  that  the  bishop  was  not 
distinguished  from  the  other  presbyters,  by  any  exclusive 
assumption  of  order  or  power. 

And  first,  the  Cyprianic  church  was  not  a  diocese,  made  up 
of  several  distinct  churches,  with  their  several  altars  or  com- 
munion tables,  as  are  the  churches  in  any  modern  diocese, 
but  was  one  congregation,  however  numerous.  The  church 
at  Carthage  was  a  particular  one.  There  was  but  one  in  the 
city,  although  its  members  held  assemblies,  for  religious  exer- 
cises, at  different  places.  But  independent,  stated  churches, 
with  officers  and  discipline  of  their  own,  and  members  pecu- 
liarly attached  to  them,  there  were  none.  This  may  be  infer- 
red from  the  fact,  that,  in  all  his  writings,  Cyprian  never  once 
alludes  to  any  more  than  one  church,  although  he  would  have 
been  necessarily  led  to  do  so  by  his  subject,  had  any  such 
existed.  We  have  nearly  one  hundred  epistles  of  this  father, 
many  of  them  written  to  his  church,  during  his  absence,  and 
when  dissensions  and  troubles  had  arisen  among  his  presby- 
ters, and  yet  he  never  hints  that  there  was  any  church  but  one 
in  the  city.1  This  appears  also  from  the  positive  testimony 
of  Cyprian.  Thus  having,  during  his  absence,  ordained  one 
of  the  readers  of  his  church,  in  writing  to  his  presbyters,  dea- 
cons, and  people,  he  says,2  '  What  was  more  fit  than  that  he 
should  be  set  on  the  pulpit,  that  is,  the  tribunal  of  the  church, 
that,  by  the  height  of  the  place,  he  might  be  seen  by  the 
whole  flock,  and  read  unto  them  the  precepts  and  the  gospel 
of  the  Lord,  which  he  had  so  courageously  and  faithfully  fol- 
lowed, that  that  voice  of  his  that  had  confessed  the  Lord, 
might  be  daily  heard  in  reciting  what  the  Lord  had  spoken 
(in  his  word.)  And  then  he  adds,  that  he  had  thoughts  also 
of  advancing  him  to  be  one  of  the  presbyters.  And  the  same 
is  observable  in  the  ordination  of  Aurelius,  another  reader, 
who  is  supposed  by  Cyprian  to  read  to  the  fraternity,  and  to 
be  reader  to  the  same  flock  to  whom  he  was  bishop. 

'  Now,  had  there,'  says   Mr.  Boyse,3  '  been  several  congre- 

1)  See  Ep.43,  and  Boyse,  pp.  153  2)  Ep.  39. 

-158-  3)  Anct.  Episcop.  p.  159. 


3S2  THE    TESTIMONY    OF    CYPRIAN  [BOOK    II. 

gations  under  Cyprian's  charge,  as  their  bishop,  how  comes 
he  to  give  no  intimation  in  which  of  them  Aurelius  and  Cel- 
erinus  were  to  officiate  as  readers?  Nay,  how  comes  he  to 
suppose  only  one  pulpit  for  his  church,  and  that  Celerinus's 
person  might  be  seen  and  his  voice  heard  of  the  whole  flock  ? ' 

This  will  be  further  manifest  from  the  fact,  that  the  whole 
church  at  Carthage  were  accustomed,  ordinarily,  to  join  to- 
gether, in  the  celebration  of  the  Lord's  supper.  Cyprian 
'  celebrated  the  sacrament  in  presence  of  all  the  brotherhood.'1 
Further,  the  whole  church  at  Carthage  were  ordinarily  pres- 
ent in  all  acts  of  discipline,  and  in  the  transaction  of  other 
church  affairs,  and  gave  their  judgment.'2  And,  finally,  as 
Cyprian  was  himself  chosen  to  his  office  by  the  suffrages  of 
his  people,  so  does  he  declare  that  it  was  the  general  custom 
for  the  people  to  meet  and  choose  their  own  bishop.3  That 
church,  therefore,  over  which  Cyprian  and  his  contemporary 
bishops  presided,  was  such  as  could  meet  together  in  one 
place  for  all  the  acts  of  worship  and  discipline,  and  for  the 
celebration  of  the  ordinances,  and  was  not  therefore  diocesan 
but  parochial.  Indeed  it  was  a  maxim  with  Cyprian,  that 
there  was  'one  bishop  to  each  particular  church.'4  He  also 
styles  himself  '  pastor  of  the  church.'5 

Secondly,  the  Cyprianic  bishop  is  not  distinguished  from 
the  other  presbyters  by  any  higher  order,  or  by  any  exclusive 
authority  and  prerogatives.  He  allows  him  indeed  a  primacy 
of  office  as  president,  but  not  of  order,  as  prelates  claim.  Cyp- 
rian nowhere  recognises  the  existence  of  an  order  of  bishops 
having  the  sole  power  of  ordination,  government,  and  disci- 
pline; and  essentially  distinct  from  presbyters.  On  the  con- 
trary, he  every  where  divides  the  clergy  into  two  classes,  the 
one  including  bishops  and  presbyters,  and  the  other  deacons.6 
The  Cyprianic  bishop  had  not  sole  or  absolute  power.  He 
had  not  the  presidency  over  a  plurality  of  congregations.  He 
had  not  a  negative  voice  in  the  councils  of  the  church.  He 
ruled  the  church  in  common  with  the  other  presbyters,  though, 
as  president,  he  was  called  bishop.  He  did  nothing  of  im- 
portance without  consulting  his  presbyters.7     He  was  chosen 

1)  Sacramenti  veritatem  omni  4)  Ep.  43.  $  3.  See  Mr.  Mar- 
fraternitate  praesente  celebrare.  Ep.  shall's  note.  So  also  in  Ep.  46.  Ep. 
63.                                                                  49,    concl.  and    Ep.  66,  §   3,  '  the  one 

2)  See  Ep.  5;  Ep.  14;  Ep.  16  ;  bishop,  presiding  over  every  church.' 
Ep.  17  ;  Ep.  19:  Ep.  43.  This,  says  Mr.  Marshall,  '  is  the  genu- 

3)  See  Ep.  67.  See  also  Ep.  38,  ine  language  of  pure  antiquity.'  See 
and   39,   where   we   learn   that  even  also  §  6,  ibid. 

readers  were  also  elected  in  the  same  5)  Ep.  13. 

way.  6)  Ep.  3;  Ep.4;  Ep.  72. 

7)  Ep.  6. 


CHAP.  HI.]  AND    FIRMILIAN    AGAINST    PBELACY. 

by  the  people  of  his  charge.  I  !<•  administered  the  ordinal 
He  recognised  in  his  associate  presbyters  the  power,  by  divine 
right)  t<>  govern  the  church,  and  discharge  every  ministerial 
function,  during  his  absence.1  He  even  gives  to  the  presby- 
ters the  name  propositus)  or  president,  which  he  assumes  to 
himself.9  He  defends  the  character  of  his  office  againsl  Pa- 
pian,  by  appealing  to  t lu*  fact  that  he  was  a  priest  or  presby- 
ter.8 And  he  attributes  to  bishops  no  greater  preeminence 
over  presbyters  than  Peter  had  over  the  other  apostles.4  They 
were,  therefore,  of  the  same  order  with  bishops,  so  thai  if 
bishops  were  successors  of  the  apostles,  presbyters  arc  suc- 
cessors of  them  also.''  'All  are  pastors,1  says  Cyprian,  'but 
die  dock  is  only  one,  which  was  fed  by  all  the  apostles,  with 
unanimous  consent.'  Bishops  and  presbyters,  therefore,  are, 
according  to  Cyprian,  equal,  by  divine  right,  and  differ  only 
by  human  custom  and  law;  for,  he  affirms,  'alter  the  resur- 
rection each  and  all  of  the  other  apostles  had  ecpaal  power 
given  to  thai  of  Peter.'6 

Such  was  the  bishop  Cyprian,  who,  if  he  was  not  in  order 
and  in  nature,  a  presbyter,  occupying  the  chief  seal  in  council 
and  authority,  was  certainly  removed  to  an  infinite  distance 
from  the  modem  diocesan  prelate.7 

Contemporary  with  Cyprian  was  Firmilian,  bishop  of 
Csesarea,  and  the  intimate  friend  of  Origen  and  of  Cypri- 
an, among  whose  works  an  epistle  of  this  lather  is  preserv- 
ed.- Iii  this  he  says:  'but  the  other  heretics,  also,  if  they 
separate  from  the  church,  can  have  no  power  or  grace,  since 
all  power  and  -race  are  placed  in  the  church,  where  pres- 
byters presided,  iii  whom  is  vested  the  power  of  baptizing, 
and  imposition  of  hands,  ami  ordination?  The  importance 
of  this  testimony  musl  be  evident,  [twas  given  by  a  bishop 
to  a  bishop,  and  preserved  among  the  writings  of  that  bishop. 
We  must  regard  it,  therefore,  as  conclusive  evidence  of  the 
opinions  of  these  fathers,  and  of  the  custom  of  the  age.     The 

1)  Ep.  5  and  6.  Lauders's  Ancient  Bishops  Consider- 

2)  Ep.  10, 11,  62.  ed;  Causa  Episcopatus  Hier.Luci! 

3)  I  |>.  tn  Papianus.  on   the    Principles  of  the    Cypi 

4)  D.'  Ciiit.  Eccl.  lib.   L706,  ltd.  :    Dr.  W 
•r>)    This    i-    the   opinion  of  Mr.     Pnrait.   Govt,  of  the    Ch.  pp    I 

Dodwell.     See  Dr.  Miller  on  the  Mm.  B  Cyprianic     Bishop     Examin- 

p.  117.  ed  ;    Jameson's    Cypriaous  Isol 

De  t'nit.  F...-1. 

See  Stillingfleet's  Irenicum,  p.  cop,  p.  152,  etc.;  Plea  for  Presbytery, 

On   the  testimony  of  Cyprian,  pp.  284-5 
see  Dr.  Miller  on  the  Mm.  pp.  113-  v)   1  ;  eWJcs.  of  Cyprian, 

117,  339;  Powell  on  Apost.  Succ.  pp.  Ed.  Bened.  Venetus,  1728,  p.  302, 
CO -62;    Anderson's  Defence,  p.  167. 


384  FIRMILIAN    AND    NOVATUS.  [BOOK  II. 

whole  plenitude  of  episcopal  power,  authority,  and  functions, 
is  here  explicitly  vested  in  presbyters ;  and  Cyprian,  whatev- 
ever  he  may  have  said  of  episcopal  dignity,  never  left  on  record 
any  disavowal  or  disapprobation  of  this  testimony.  Presby- 
ters, therefore,  are  the  authorized  and  vested  successors  of  the 
apostles.1 

In  connection  with  the  testimonies  of  Cyprian  and  Firmil- 
ian  may  be  adduced  that  of  Novatus.  Novatus  was  one  of 
the  presbyters  in  Cyprian's  church.  During  Cyprian's  con- 
cealment from  the  rage  of  persecution,  Novatus  ordained 
Felicissimus  a  deacon.  Now,  although  Cyprian  blames  him 
for  his  factious  ambition,  in  not  consulting  him,  yet  he  neither 
deprived  him,  or  his  appointed  deacon,  of  orders,  nor  did  he 
cease  to  speak  well  of  Novatus  in  the  year  following.2  So 
the  only  hindrance,  existing  at  this  time,  to  the  exercise  of  the 
power  of  ordination  by  presbyters,  was  ecclesiastical  rule. 
This  appears  further,  from  the  fact,  that,  during  the  vacancy 
of  the  church,  the  presbyters  at  Rome  continued  to  govern, 
and  in  all  things  to  manage  that  church,  by  their  common 
council.3 

1)   On  the  testimony  of  Firmilian,  timus,  pp.413,  418,  419,  where  his  tes- 

see  Dr.  Miller  on  the   Min.  p.  117;  timony  is  fullv  vindicated. 
Schism,   p.  143;    Powell    on   Apost.  2)  See  Ep.  6,  31,  40,  49,  58. 

Succ.  p.  62;  Dr.  Wilson's  Prim.  Govt.  3)  See  ibid,  Ep.  31. 

pp.  82-54;  Jameson's  Cyprianus  Iso- 


CHAPTER    IV. 


THE  TESTIMONY  OF  THE  LATER  FATHERS  IN  FAVOR  OF  THE 

CLAIMS  OF  PRESBYTERY  TO  THE  TRUE 

MINISTERIAL  SUCCESSION. 


§  1.     The  great  importance  of  the  testimony  of  the  later 
fathers  in  favor  of  presbytery. 

We  have  no  design  of  taking  up  these  fathers  seriatim.  This, 
we  have  shown,  would  be  useless.  We  have  now  reached 
a  period  in  our  testimonies,  when  prelacy  was  becoming  and 
soon  became  the  established  polity  of  the  churches  generally. 
Of  course,  the  writers  of  the  church  are  to  be  expected  to  ac- 
quiesce in  the  system,  and  to  justify  it.  Their  testimony,  as 
to  its  apostolicity,  would  be  of  no  manner  of  importance. 
The  only  question  is,  did  all  thus  silently  acquiesce,  and  were 
none  found  ready  to  bear  their  testimony  in  favor  of  the 
original  constitution  of  the  church,  and  against  the  existing 
hierarchy  ?  We  shall  endeavor  to  show,  that  there  were  such 
witnesses ;  that,  therefore,  even  within  the  bosom  of  the  cor- 
rupted hierarchy,  the  voice  of  reprobation  was  never  silent ; 
and  that  the  light  of  truth,  however  obscured,  never  ceased  to 
burn,  until,  at  the  era  of  the  reformation,  it  broke  forth  into  the 
full  blaze  of  its  primeval  glory.  These  testimonies  will  be  of 
further  use,  in  showing  who  it  is  that  presumptuously  set  up 
their  private  interpretation  of  the  fathers,  and  make  them  pro- 
fess belief  in  what  they  never  dreamt  of.1  But  they  will  be 
found  still  more  important.  Mr.  Newman,  and  high-church 
prelatists  generally,  tell  us,  that  'three  centuries  and  more 
were  necessary  for  the  infant  church  to  attain  her  mature  and 
perfect  form  and  due  stature,' a   and  that,  therefore,  we  are  to 

1)  See  Jameson's  Cyp.  Isot.  pp.     and  the   Ch.  of  our  Fath. :     see  the 
439,  440.  Churchm.  Monthly  Rev.  1S42,  pp.  506, 

2)  British   Mag.  vol.   ix.  p.  359  ;    507,  &c. 

49 


386  THE  TESTIMONY   OF  THE  LATER  FATHERS        [BOOK  II. 

look  to  the  fathers  of  that  age,  for  its  true  polity.  It  is  thus 
admitted,  that  the  church  system  of  the  fourth  century,  differed 
from  that  of  the  first  and  second,  and  also  from  that  of  the 
sixteenth,  so  that,  '  they  are  not  only  diverging  but  contrary,' 
and  so,  that  '  it  is  impossible  for  the  same  mind  to  sympathize 
with  both.'1  The  fact  of  a  change  is  thus  admitted,'2  and  it 
is  fully  corroborated  by  every  testimony  we  can  produce  from 
these  fathers,  to  the  original  character  and  condition  of  the 
church.  We  are  led,  therefore,  to  inquire,  what  that  change 
and  that  system  could  be,  which  is  congenial  to  such  minds 
as  the  fathers  of  the  fourth  century,  and  with  which,  all  who 
are  of  an  evangelical  spirit,  cannot  possibly  sympathize. 
What  was  that  church  system  and  polity,  patronized  and  ad- 
vanced by  Basil,  Athanasius,  and  Ambrose  ?  And  who,  that 
examines,  a  priori,  the  prophecies  of  God's  word,  or  a  pos- 
teriori, the  lineaments  of  this  hierarchical  system,  can  doubt, 
whether  it  was  the  mystery  of  iniquity,  foretold  by  holy  men 
of  God,  as  at  this  very  period  about  to  manifest  itself.  All 
antiquity  assures  ujs,  that  the  power  which  hindered  its  man- 
ifestation, in  the  days  of  the  apostles,  and  which  was  known 
to  the  Thessalonians,  (ye  knoiv  what  withholdeth,)  but  which 
the  apostle  avoided  explicitly  naming,  was  the  imperial  pow- 
er of  Rome.3  And  it  was  at  this  very  period,  A.  D.  330,  the 
removal  of  the  government  from  Rome  to  Constantinople, 
and  the  final  overthrow  of  the  Roman  empire,  (A.  D.  476,)  took 
place.  The  church  of  Ambrose's  days,  had  made  great  addi- 
tions to  apostolic  Christianity,  so  that  it  might  well  be  called 
'another  gospel;'  and  also  to  apostolic  polity,  so  that, '  the 
two  systems  are  not  only  diverging  but  contrary.'  On  this 
point  we  might  enlarge,  but  it  is  unnecessary,  since  the  writ- 
ings of  Mr.  Taylor  are  in  every  one's  hands.4  It  is  in  this 
view  of  it,  we  are  led  to  regard  this  controversy  in  its  true 
light,  not  merely  as  one  affecting  externals,  but  as  deeply  im- 
plicating the  fundamentals  of  our  faith.  And  every  testimony 
we  may  be  able  to  adduce,  will  be  another  warning  voice, 
calling  on  us  to  beware  ;  to  contend  earnestly  for  the  faith 
once  delivered  to  the  saints;  and  to  stand  fast  in  the  liberty 
wherewith  Christ  has  made  us  free. 

1)  Froude's  Rem.  vol.  iii.p.  29 ;  in  No.  S3  ;  see  Ch.  Monthly  Rev.  as  above, 
ibid,  p.  508.  p.  509. 

2)  See,  also,  Sinclair's  Vind.  of  the  4 )  Anct.  Christ,  vol.  i.  and  espec. 
Ep.  or  Apost.  Succ.  p.  31.  vol.  ii.;  see  also  the  Churchm.  Rev.  as 

3)  This  is  granted  by  the  Oxf.  Tr.  above,  which  clearly  establishes  the 

point. 


CHAP.  IV.]  IN  FAVOR  OF  PRESBYTERY.  387 


§  2.     The  testimony  of  the   fathers  generally,  in  favor   of 
presbytery,  and  of  Eusebius. 

The  learned  Whitaker,  a  divine  of  the  English  church  says,1 
'  if  Aerius  was  a  heretic  in  this  point,  he  had  Jerome  to  be  his 
neighbor  in  that  heresy,  and  not  only  him,  but  other  fathers, 
both  Greek  and  Latin,  as  is  confessed  by  Medina.  Aerius 
thought,  that  presbyter  did  not  differ  from  bishop,  by  any  di- 
vine law  and  authority ;  and  the  same  thing  was  contended 
for  by  Jerome,  and  he  defended  it  by  those  very  scripture  tes- 
timonies which  Aerius  did.  But  how  childishly  and  foolishly 
Epiphanius  answered  to  these  testimonies,  every  one  may 
see.  - 

To  these  we  add  the  remarkable  testimony  of  the  Rev.  Mr. 
Palmer,  the  most  able  and  learned  advocate  of  high-church 
and  semi-popish  prelacy  of  the  present  day.3  '  If  it  were  ad- 
visable to  enter  on  this  question  at  any  extent,  it  might  be 
easily  shown,  that  there  is  very  considerable  authority  from 
tradition,  in  favor  of  the  identity  in  order,  of  the  first  and 
second  degrees  of  the  ministry.  I  mean,  that  the  title  of  bishop 
or  presbyter  might  be  applied  to  both,  though  the  bishops  or 
presbyters  of  the  first  class  are  distinguished  from  those  of 
the  second,  jure  divino.  We  find,  that  Clement  of  Rome, 
Polycarp,  Irenaeus,  Clement  of  Alexandria,  Tertullian,  Firm- 
ilian,  and  others,  sometimes  only  speak  of  two  orders  in  the 
church,  that  is,  bishops  or  presbyters,  and  deacons ;  or  else 
mention  the  pastors  of  the  first  order,  under  the  title  of  pres- 
byters. Besides  this,  many  writers  employ  language  and 
arguments,  which  go  directly  to  prove  the  identity  of  the  first 
and  second  degrees  of  the  ministry,  in  order.  Amongst  these 
may  probably  be  mentioned,  Jerome,  Hilary,  the  deacon, 
Chrysostom,  Augustine,  Theodoret,  Sedulius,  Primasius,  Isi- 
dore, Hispalensis,  Bede,  Alcuin,  the  synod  of  Aix,  in  1819, 
Amalarius,  and  others,  quoted  by  Morinus.'  To  the  same 
purpose,  we  might  adduce  the  testimony  of  Mr.  Reynolds;4 
of  bishop  Morton,5  and  others.  But,  to  use  the  words  of  Riv- 
et,6 whosoever  shall  consider  their  answers,  collected  by  Six- 

1)  Cont.  4,  Quest.  1.  c.  3,  §  xxx.  p.  375,  Eng.ed.  part  vi.  ch.  i.;  also,  pp. 
in  Ayton's  Constit.  of  the  Ch.  p.  575.  398,  400,403,409. 

2)  See,  also,  to  the  same  effect,  4)  See  his  letter  to  Sir  Francis 
Bellarmine  de  Cleric.  1.  i.  c.  15,  in  Ay-  Knolls,  given  in  Neal,  and  in  Boyse's 
ton,  p.  574;    also,  Dr.  John  Edwards,  Anct.  Christ. p.  13,  &c. 

in  Remains,  p.  253;  in  Presb.  Ord.  Def.  5)  Apol.  Cathol.  part  i.  c.  33,  pp. 

p.  65  ;  Willet's  Syn.  Pap.  275.  96,  97  ;  in  Baxter's  Disput.  Pref.  p.  14. 

3)  Treatise  on  the  Church,  vol.  ii.  6)  Cath.  Orth.  torn.  i.  p.  386,  in 

Jameson's  Fund.  p.  23. 


388  THE  TESTIMONY  OF  EUSEB1US  [BOOK  II. 

tus  Senensis,  Biblioth.  lib.  vi.  annot.  319,  323,  324,  they  shall 
presently  perceive,  that  all  their  distinctions  are  most  pitiful 
elusions  ;  and  that,  indeed,  all  these  fathers  were  no  less  pres- 
byterian  than  Aerius,  although  they  accommodate  themselves 
to  the  custom  then  received ;  lest  for  a  matter  not  contrary  to 
the  foundations  of  religion,  they  should  have  broken  the  unity 
of  the  church.  What  do  our  opposites  herein,  but  espouse 
what  the  Romanists,  in  whom  any  ingenuity  remains,  have 
long  since  disowned  ? ' 

We  will  only  add  the  testimony  of  Stillingfleet.1  '  I  do  as 
yet,'  says  he,  '  despair  of  finding  any  one  single  testimony,  in 
all  antiquity,  which  doth  in  plain  terms  assert  episcopacy,  as 
it  was  settled  by  the  practice  of  the  primitive  church,  in  ages 
following  the  apostles,  to  be  of  unalterable  divine  right.' 

Eusebius  was  born,  probably,  about  A.  D.  270,  and  flour- 
ished A.  D.  320,  at  which  time  he  was  bishop  of  Cresarea. 
We  will  give  much  of  what  we  have  to  say  of  this  father,  in 
the  words  of  a  recent  episcopalian.2  'Nor  will  those,  who 
would  maintain  for  the  episcopate  a  more  exclusive  claim, 
find  it  easy  to  establish,  from  the  earliest  christian  writers,  the 
sole  right  of  bishops  to  ordain.  What,  for  instance,  have  we 
of  higher  authority  than  the  history  of  Eusebius ;  who  tells  us, 
speaking  of  the  first  ages  of  the  church,  that  '  the  greater  part 
of  the  disciples,  then  living,  affected  with  great  zeal  towards 
the  word  of  God,  first  distributed  their  substance  among  the 
poor,  and  then,  taking  their  journey,  fulfilled  the  work  and  of- 
fice of  evangelists,  preaching  Christ  among  them  which  had 
not  yet  heard  the  gospel.'  And  these  men,  having  planted 
the  faith  in  sundry  new  and  strange  places,  ordained  there 
other  pastors,  committing  unto  them  the  tillage  of  the  ground, 
and  the  oversight  of  the  newly-converted,  passing  themselves 
unto  other  people  and  countries,  being  holpen  thereunto  by 
the  grace  of  God.'3  Now,  without  contending  for  the  literal 
and  extreme  accuracy  of  this  sketch,  we  cannot  avoid  seeing 
in  it  the  impression  of  Eusebius,  himself  a  bishop  of  the  Ni- 
cene  age,  that  ordination  might  be  given  by  evangelists,  or 
missionaries,  who  themselves  were  not  of  the  episcopal  rank. 
The  disciples  of  whom  he  speaks,  and  whom  he  describes  as 
very  numerous,  evidently  were  not  bishops,  for  it  is  an 
essential  feature  in  the  character  of  a  bishop,  that  he  is  set 
over  a  church  already  existing,  and  requiring  an  overseer  to 

1)  Irenicum,pp.  31,  276.  3)  Eusebius,  Eccl.  Hist.  lib.  iii.  c 

2)  The  able  author  of  Essays  on     33. 
the  Church,  Lond.  1840,  pp.  252,  253. 


CHAP.  IV.]  IN    FAVOR    OF    PRESBYTERY.  389 

rule  its  various  elders  and  deacons.  But  these  evangelists 
went  forth  among  the  heathen,  to  preach  the  gospel,  and  to 
found  infant  churches  ;  and  wherever  they  went, '  they  ordain- 
ed] says  Eusebius,  'other  pastors'  from  among  their  converts, 
and  thus  filled  the  world  with  the  christian  faith.  Such  is  the 
fact  which  this  Nicene  bishop  relates,  and  which  excites  in  his 
mind  no  surprise  or  displeasure,  as  if  the  episcopal  functions 
had  been  usurped.  The  conclusion  is  obvious,  that  such  a 
practice  was  not  unknown,  nor  even  uncommon,  in  the  prim- 
itive times.  Such  glimpses  of  the  practice  of  the  early  church 
make  us  shrink  from  the  high  pretensions  of  the  modern 
exalters  of  episcopacy.  But  this  is  not  all.  When  Euse- 
bius gives  us  formal  catalogues  of  bishops,  in  succession,  from 
the  apostles'  times  until  his  own,  he  himself  warns  us  against 
laying  too  much  stress  on  his  information;  frankly  confessing 
'  that  he  was  obliged  to  rely  much  on  tradition,  and  that  he 
could  trace  no  footsteps  of  other  historians  going  before  him, 
only  in  a  few  narratives.'  This  confession  of  Eusebius,  we 
shall  present  in  the  words  of  the  great  Milton.  '  Eusebius, 
the  ancientest  writer  of  church  history  extant,  confesses,  in  the 
fourth  chapter  of  his  third  book,  that  it  was  no  easy  matter  to 
tell,  who  were  those  that  were  left  bishops  of  the  churches  by 
the  apostles,  more  than  what  a  man  might  gather  from  the 
Acts  of  the  Apostles,  and  the  epistles  of  St.  Paul,  in  which 
number  he  reckons  Timothy  for  bishop  of  Ephesus.  So  as 
may  plainly  appear,  that  this  tradition  of  bishoping  Timothy 
over  Ephesus,  was  but  taken  for  granted  out  of  that  place  in 
St.  Paul,  which  was  only  an  entreating  him  to  tarry  at  Ephesus, 
to  do  something  left  him  in  charge.  Now  if  Eusebius,  a  fa- 
mous writer,  thought  it  so  difficult  to  tell  who  were  appointed 
bishops  by  the  apostles,  much  more  may  we  think  it  difficult 
to  Leontius,  an  obscure  bishop,  speaking  beyond  his  own  di- 
ocese ;  and  certainly,  much  more  hard  was  it  for  either  of 
them  to  determine  what  kind  of  bishops  these  were,  if  they 
had  so  little  means  to  know  who  they  were  ;  and  much  less 
reason  have  we  to  stand  to  their  definitive  sentence ;  seeing 
they  have  been  so  rash  as  to  raise  up  such  lofty  bishops  and 
bishopricks,  out  of  places  of  scripture  merely  misunderstood. 
Thus,  while  we  leave  the  Bible,  to  gad  after  these  traditions 
of  the  ancients,  we  hear  the  ancients  themselves  confessing, 
that  what  knowledge  they  had  in  this  point,  was  such  as  ihey 
had  gathered  from  the  Bible.' 1 

1)  Milton,  against  Prelat.  Episc.p.  3. 


390  THE    TESTIMONY    OF    HILARY,  [BOOK  It. 


§  3.     The  testimony  of  Hilary. 

Hilary,  of  Poictiers,  was  born  at  the  close  of  the  third  cen- 
tury, and  flourished  A.  D.  354.  On  Eph.4:  11,  12,  he  says,1 
among  other  things,  'for  also  Timothy,  who  had  been  created 
by  himself  ( Paul)  a  presbyter,  he  denominates  a  bishop,  because 
presbyters  were  at  first  called  bishops,  seeing  that  one  reced- 
ing, the  next  might  succeed  to  his  place.  Finally,  in  Egypt, 
presbyters  ordain,  if  a  bishop  be  not  present.  But  because 
the  presbyters,  who  came  afterwards,  began  to  be  found  un- 
worthy to  hold  the  highest  office,  the  custom  was  changed,  a 
council  '  providing,  that  not  succession,  but  merit,  should  cre- 
ate a  bishop,  constituted  by  the  judgment  of  many  presbyters, 
lest  an  unworthy  person  should  rashly  intrude,  and  become  an 
offence  to  many.'  Hilary  thought  Timothy  to  have  been,  by 
his  ordination,  a  presbyter,  and,  also,  by  the  same  ordination, 
a  bishop,  because  presbyters  were  so  denominated  in  the 
days  of  the  apostle.  Moreover,  he  asserts,  that  presbyters  pre- 
sided successively,  by  which  he  means,  that  they  came  to  be 
primi,  or  bishops,  in  a  modern  sense  of  the  word,  according 
to  seniority  in  ordination,  until  by  a  canon  of  council  it  was 
decreed,  that  the  successor  should  be  appointed  according  to 
merit.'  '  Whether  the  term  consignant,  expressed  the  confirm- 
ation of  the  baptized,  or  the  imposition  of  hands  on  those  who 
were  ordained,  or  on  penitents,  it  was  correctly  accomplished 
by  the  presbyter,  in  the  absence  of  the  bishop,  whose  prefer- 
ence was  founded  only  on  custom  and  canons ;  but  these 
could  not  have  legalized  such  act  of  a  presbyter,  had  his  au- 
thority not  been  apostolical.'  On  1  Tim.  3,  he  observes,2  that 
the  apostle,  'after  the  bishop,  subjoins  the  ordination  of  the 
deacon  ;  why  ?  unless  the  ordination  of  the  bishop  and  of  the 
presbyter  is  one,  for  each  of  them  is  a  priest.  But  the  bishop 
is  first,  seeing  every  bishop  is  a  presbyter,  not  every  presbyter 
a  bishop  ;  for  he  is  a  bishop,  who  is  first  among  the  presby- 
ters. Finally,  he  represents  Timothy  to  have  been  ordained 
a  presbyter,  but  because  he  had  not  another  before  him,  he 
was  a  bishop.  Whence,  also,  he  shows,  that  he  may,  after 
the  like  manner,  ordain  a  bishop.  For  it  was  neither  right 
nor  lawful,  that  an  inferior  should  ordain  a  superior,  for  no 
one  confers  what  he  has  not  received.'  After  a  few  sentences 
he  adds  :  '  but  they  ought  to  be  seven  deacons  and  some  pres- 
byters,  that  there    may   be  two  in   every  church,   and  one 

1)  Dr.  Wilson,  ibid,  p.  112.  2)  Ambrose,  Oper.tom.iii.p.272. 


CHAP.  IV.]  DAMASUS,    AND    AERIUS.  391 

bishop  in  a  city.' 1  Writing  in  the  middle  of  the  fourth  centu- 
ry, this  last  sentence  accords  with  the  circumstances  of  his 
day,  and  discovers  his  own  acquiescence  in  the  authority  of 
the  church.  Nevertheless,  he  shows  his  clear  discernment  of 
ancient  facts,  when  he  affirms,  that  there  was  but  one  ordina- 
tion for  the  bishop  and  the  presbyter,  and  their  office  the  same. 
The  word  primus,  where  it  first  occurs  in  this  quotation,  has 
been  supposed  to  agree  with  sacerdos ;  but  that  it  governs 
presbyterorum,  understood,  and  takes  its  gender,  is  evident 
from  his  own  explanation  :  '  hie  enim  episcopus  est,  qui  inter 
presbyteros  primus  est?*  Besides,  also,  the  superiority  of  Tim- 
othy is  not  ascribed  to  a  higher  order  of  priesthood,  but  to  his 
being  a  primus  presbyter ;  for  since  Timothy  was  directed 
to  ordain  bishops,  he  could  not  have  done  this,  if,  instead  of 
being  in  equal  grade,  a  '  primus,'  he  had  been  an  '  inferior 
presbyter.1 3 

4  §.     The  testimony  of  Damasus. 

Damasus  was  bishop  of  Rome,  A.  D.  366.  His  testimony 
is  thus  given  by  Dr.  Willet.4  '  Damasus,  non  amplius  quam 
duos  ordines,  &c.  We  read  but  of  two  orders  among  the 
disciples  of  Christ,  that  is,  of  the  twelve  apostles,  and  the 
seventy  disciples  ;  and  who  are  now  in  the  place  of  those, 
Innocentius  showeth,  decret.  Greg.  lib.  i.  tit.  xiv.  c.  9.  Hos 
solos  Primitiva  Ecclesia,  &c.  The  primitive  church  only  had 
these  two  sacred  orders  of  priests  and  deacons.' 

§  5.     The  testimony  of  Aerius. 

Aerius,  presbyter  of  Eustathius,  bishop  of  Sebaste,  flour- 
ished A.  D.  368.  He  maintained  '  that,  jure  divino,  by  divine 
appointment,  there  was  no  difference  between  bishops  and 
presbyters.'  Thus  Epiphanius  represents  him  as  asking,5 
'  as  to  what  is  a  bishop  before  a  presbyter?  In  what  do  they 
differ  ?  The  order  is  the  same,  the  honor  one,  and  the  excel- 
lence one ;  the  bishop  imposes  hands,  and  so  does  the  pres- 
byter; the  bishop  performs  the  whole  of  public  worship, 
and  the  presbyter  in  like  manner ;  the  bishop  sits  upon  a 
throne,  and  so  does  the  presbyter.'  Epiphanius,  accordingly, 
charges  Aerius,  first,  with  teaching  that  the  apostle,  in  *1 
Tim.  3,  enumerates  the  qualifications,  not  of  prelates,  but  of 

1 )  ^.dem-  4)  In  Willet,  Syn.  Pap.  p.  273. 

2)  Skinner,  p.  219.  5)  Adv.   Hseres.   I.   iii.  torn.  i.  p. 

3)  See   further    extracts,  in  Dr.     906,  in  Dr.  Wilson,  p.  125. 
Wilson,  pp.  109,116,117. 


392  THE    TESTIMONY    OF    AERIUS.  [BOOK  II. 

presbyter  bishops  and  deacons;  secondly,  with  representing 
1  Tim.  4 :  14,  as  proving  that  Timothy  was  ordained,  not  by 
the  hands  of  an  office,  but  of  the  presbytery ;  and,  thirdly, 
that  he  considered  the  apostle,  in  Titus  1 :  5-7,  as  speaking 
of  the  same  persons  as  bishops  and  presbyters,  calling  them 
indifferently  by  either  name  ;  that  is,  with  being  a  thorough 
presbyterian. 1 

Now  this  testimony  is  of  great  importance,  because  it  was 
not  the  judgment  of  Aerius  alone,  but  of  an  immense  number 
in  that  and  the  following  ages.  Indeed,  but  for  the  fierce 
persecutions  with  which  the  adherents  of  these  opinions  were 
hunted  down,  by  the  merciful  claimants  to  prelatical  apostol- 
ical succession,  we  have  every  reason  to  believe,  that  they 
would  have  become  general,  or,  at  least,  have  left  the  opposing 
hierarchy  in  an  unenviable  minority.  Aerius  appealed  to 
the  scriptures,  and  '  seems,'  says  Mosheim,  '  to  have  aimed  to 
reduce  religion  to  its  primitive  simplicity.'  '  His  doctrine,'  as 
the  same  historian  adds,  '  was  pleasing  to  many  who  were 
disgusted  with  the  pride  and  arrogance  of  the  bishops  of  that 
age.'  He  found  'a  great  multitude,'  as  Fleury  says,  'to 
follow  him,  so  that  Armenia,  Pontus,  and  Cappadocia,  were 
rent  by  the  schism.'2  The  prelatical  party  drove  these  con- 
tenders for  apostolical  order  from  the  churches,  from  the 
cities,  and  the  villages.  But  even  then  they  still  continued 
to  assemble  in  the  woods,  in  caverns,  and  in  the  open  coun- 
try, even  when  the  ground  was  covered  with  snow.3 

Great  have  been  the  efforts  of  the  proud  and  ambitious 
prelates,  to  obscure  the  lustre  of  this  wide  spread  testimony, 
to  the  truth  of  presbytery.  None  of  the  writings  of  Aerius 
have  been  allowed  to  come  down  to  us.  We  learn  his  senti- 
ments only  through  the  representations  of  his  cruel  enemies. 
He  is,  therefore,  as  is  the  case  with  the  Paulicians,  the  Nestorians, 
the  Waldenses,  and  the  Reformers,  covered  with  obloquy  and 
branded  with  outrageous  heresy.  And  for  the  truth  of  this,  a 
thousand  authorities  are  produced.  But  when  we  come  to 
examine  them  they  are  every  one  of  them  bottomed  upon 
Epiphanius,  who  treats  of  Aerius  in  a  perfect  frenzy  of  pas- 
sion ;  who  is  notorious  for  credulity ;  who  stands  convicted  of 
many  historical  mistakes ;  who  gives  no  sufficient  evidence, 
for  his  calumnious  reproach  ;  and  who  is,  therefore,  altogether 
unworthy  of  credit.4     But,  let  this  be  as  it  may,  it  affects  not 

1)  See      Dr.    Wilson,  pp.     146,            4)  See  this  subject  fully  cleared 
147.  up,  and  the  contradictions  of  Epipha- 

2)  Tom.  iv.  B.  xix.  nius  shown,  in  Jameson's  Fundamen- 

3)  Ibid.  tals  of  the  Hierarchy,  pp.  24-30,    See 


CHAP.  IV.]  THE    TESTIMONY    OF    BASIL.  393 

the  testimony  of  Aerius,  in  favor  of  presbytery.  The  heresy 
of  Aerius,  if  he  was  heretic,  cannot  be  made  to  lie  in  this ; 
since  it  has  been  already  shown,  that  his  judgment  was 
approved  by  the  very  wisest  among  all  the  fathers.  'Jerome's 
opinion,'  says  Saravia,  'was  all  one  with  that  of  Aerius.'1 
So  teach  also  the  archbishop  of  Spalato,2  and  Alphonsus  De 
Castro.3  Bishop  Morton  affirms  that  Jerome  taught  the  same 
doctrine,  on  this  point,  as  Aerius ;  '  neither,'  says  he,  '  do  other 
fathers  assert  any  thing  different.'  He  then  adduces  the  testi- 
mony of  Medina,  already  given,  and  of  Valentinus,  the  Jesuit.4 
He  goes  on  to  show,  that  such  also  were  the  sentiments  of 
Erasmus,5  Alphonsus,  Bellarmine,  Anselmus,  Sedulius,  and 
Cassander;6  and  then  asks,  whether  if  these  fathers  had 
believed  that  his  opinion  of  Aerius  had  been  condemned  as 
a  heresy,  they  would  ever  have  given  it  their  sanction,  or 
been  tolerated  in  so  doing.7 

§  6.     The  testimony  of  Basil,  Gregory  Nazianzen, 
Gregory  Nyssene,  and  Ambrose. 

Basil  was  bishop  of  Ceesarea,  A.  D.  370.  In  his  com- 
mentary on  Isaiah  3:  2,  he  says,8  on  the  word  'ancient,' 
{elder,)  '  among  the  things  that  are  threatened,  is  also  the 
removal  of  the  elder,  seeing  that  the  advantage  of  his  pres- 
ence is  not  small.  An  elder  is  he,  who  is  dignified  with  the 
first  seat,  and  enrolled  in  the  presbytery,  bearing  the  character 
of  a  presbyter;  especially,  indeed,  if  he  be  an  unmarried 
man,  or  if  even,  according  to  the  law  of  the  Lord,9  the  hus- 
band of  one  wife,  having  faithful  children,  &c. ;  this  is  the 
elder  whom  the  Lord  will  take  away  from  a  sinful  people.' 
'  This  elucidation  of  the  character  of  a  Jewish  elder,'  says  Dr. 
Wilson,  '  in  the  words  of  Paul's  description  of  a  christian 
bishop,  evinces  that  Basil  knew  that  in  the  days  of  the 
apostles,  the  office  was  the  same.10  The  testimony  of  this 
bishop  of  bishops  is  a  candid  confession,  that,  at  the  first,  the 
occupant  of  the  highest  seat  in  a  church,  was  a  presbyter.' 

also    Dr.  Wilson's   Prim.    Govt.  pp.  4)  Tom.  iv.  disp.  ix.  q.  1,  punct.  ii. 

125,  126.    Bishop  Reynolds's  Letter  to  5)  Annot.  in  1  Tim.  4. 

Sir  Francis  Knolls,  as  above,    Smec-  6)  Lib.  Consult,  art.  xiv. 

tymnuus,  p.  S9.      Burton's    Bampton  7)  See  Cathol.  Apol.  part  i.  c.  33, 

Lect.  p.   175.      Baxter  on    Episcop.    pp.  96,  97. 

p.  96.  S)  In  Dr.  Wilson,  p.  128. 

1)  De.  Div.  Grad.  Min.  Ev.  c.23.  9)  Titus  1 :  6-9. 

2)  De.  Rep.  Eccl.  lib.  ii.  c.  2.  10)  Basil,  torn.  ii.  p.  96. 

3)  Contra  Haeres,  fol.  103,  B.and 
104. 

50 


394  THE    TESTIMONY    OF    THE    TWO    GREGORIES,       [BOOK    II. 

In  his  '  Morals,'  he  classes  together  in  one  chapter,  directed 
to  the  same  object,  the  scriptural  character  and  duties  of 
bishops  and  presbyters,  taken  from  the  epistles  to  Timothy 
and  Titus,  and  places  them  under  the  title  of  '  what  things 
are  said  conjunctly,  concerning  bishops  and  presbyters.'1 
Again,  this  writer  adds,  '  Christ  says,  lovest  thou  me,  Peter, 
more  than  these  ?  Feed  my  sheep.  And  from  these  he  gave  to 
all  pastors  and  doctors  equal  power ;  whereof  this  is  a  token, 
that  all  of  them,  as  did  Peter,  bind  and  loose.  This  is  so 
plain,  that  it  needs  no  commentary.' 

Gregory  Nazianzen,  so  called,  from  his  having  been 
bishop  of  Nazianzum,  flourished  A.  D.  370.  '  The  piety  of 
this  father,'  says  Dr.  Wilson,2  '  forbids  us  to  think  he  would 
have  inveighed  against  ecclesiastical  preeminence,  if  he  had 
thought  the  higher  clerical  orders  of  his  day  founded  on  the 
sacred  scriptures ;  yet  he  complains  :  '  how  I  wish  there  had 
been  no  precedence,  no  priority  of  place,  no  authoritative 
dictatorship,  that  we  might  be  distinguished  by  virtue  only. 
But  now  this  right  hand,  and  left  hand,  and  middle  and 
higher  and  lower ;  this  going  before,  and  following  in  com- 
pany, have  produced  to  us  much  unprofitable  affliction, 
brought  many  into  a  snare,  and  thrust  them  away  into  the 
company  of  the  goats ;  not  only  of  the  inferior  class,  but  also 
of  the  shepherds,  who,  being  masters  in  Israel,  have  not 
known  these  things.'  Speaking  of  the  succession  of  Athan- 
athius  to  the  seat  of  Mark,  in  Alexandria,  he  observes: 
'  sameness  of  doctrine  is  sameness  of  chair,  and  opposi- 
tion of  sentiments  is  also  opposition  of  office,  for  the 
one  has  the  name  and  the  other  the  truth  of  the  succes- 
sion.'3 In  a  letter  to  Philagrius,  he  says,  'we  are  worn 
out,  striving  against  envy  and  consecrated  bishops,  who 
destroy  the  common  peace,  and  subordinate  the  word  of 
faith  to  their  own  love  of  superiority.'4  In  a  description  of 
the  church  at  Byzantium,  he  observes,  '  behold  the  bench  of 
presbyters,  dignified  by  age  and  understanding  ;  the  regu- 
larity of  the  deacons,  not  far  from  the  same  spirit ;  the  decency 
of  the  readers ;  the  attention  of  the  people,  as  well  in  the 
men,  as  in  the  women,  equal  in  virtue.'5  Here  are  only 
presbyters,  deacons,  readers,  and  people,  and  yet,  this  church 
cannot  be  presumed  to  have  been  defective  of  any  class  of 
officers  existing  in  other  churches.  Again,6  '  As  the  presbyter 
is  a  minister,  he  is  to  preach ;  as  he  is  a  ruler,  he  is  to  make 

1)  Basil,  torn.  ii.  p.  491.  4)  Idem.  vol.  i.  p.  377. 

2)  Prim.  Govt.p.  131.  5)  Idem.  vol.  i.  p.  S23. 

3)  Greg.  Naz.  vol.  i.  p.  484.  6)  Vol.  i.  p.  517. 


CHAP.    IV.]  AND     OF     AMBROSE.  395 

rules  (or  canons)  for  bisbops  and  presbyters.  And  further, 
he  ascends  from  being  governed  to  be  a  governor ;  again,  he 
is  to  feed  the  souls  of  men  ;  to  lead  and  conduct  others  in  the 
way  of  truth  ;  to  act  the  joint-priest  with  Christ ;  to  build  and 
rear  up  the  world  that  is  above ;  nay,  and  to  be  a  head  of  the 
fulness  of  Christ.'1 

Gregory  Nyssene  was  bishop  of  Nyssa,  whence  he  is  called 
Nyssene,  and  flourished  A.  D.  371.  Though  a  bishop,  he  was 
evidently  nothing  more  than  the  pastor  of  a  church,  as  is 
manifest  from  his  own  words.2  Thus  he  observes,3  '  that  all 
should  not  intrude  themselves  into  a  knowledge  of  the  mys- 
teries, but  choosing  one  from  themselves,  able  to  understand 
divine  things,  they  should  submissively  hear ;  esteeming 
worthy  of  faith  whatever  they  should  learn  of  him.  For  it  is 
said,  all  are  not  apostles,  nor  all  prophets,  but  this  is  not  now 
observed  in  many  of  the  churches.'  In  another  place,  speak- 
ing of  his  own  ordination,  he  says,4  '  to  us  has  come  the 
public  ministration  of  the  spiritual  supper,  whom  it  would 
better  become  to  participate  with,  than  to  communicate  to 
others.'  The  feast  here  intended  is  that  of  the  gospel,  from 
the  preaching  of  which  he  had  hoped  to  be  excused. 

After  an  apostrophe  to  the  aged  Simeon,  of  whom  he  had 
been  discoursing,  Gregory  turns  to  those  who  preside  in  the 
churches,  and  says  :  '  Seeing  to  you,  and  to  such  as  you, 
adorned  with  hoary  wisdom  from  above,  who  are  presbyters 
indeed,  and  justly  styled  the  fathers  of  the  church,  the  word  of 
God  conducts  us  to  learn  the  doctrines  of  salvation,  saying, 
(Deut.  32:  7,)  '  Ask  thy  father,  and  he  will  show  thee  ;  thy 
elders,  and  they  will  tell  thee.'  '  Here,'  says  Dr.  Wilson, 
'  those  who  presided  in  the  churches  are  denominated, 
without  exception,  presbyters  ;  and  the  official  sense  is  clearly 
exhibited  by  an  allusion  to  the  appellative  meaning  of  the 
term.  But  neither  episcopal  superiority,  nor  clerical  subor- 
dination, find  a  place.  The  latter  had  not  indeed  then  come 
into  existence ;  and  though  the  former  every  where  prevailed, 
and  even  in  the  writer  himself,  yet  his  early  impressions 
guided  him  to  the  truth,  and  his  piety  rendered  him  dead 
to  the  empty  distinctions  of  a  perishing  world.' 

Ambrose  was  made  archbishop  of  Milan,  A.  D.  374,  within 
a  week  after  he  was  baptized  a  christian.  In  his  commen- 
tary upon  the  words,  '  the  seven  stars  are  the  angels  of  the 
seven  churches,'  &c,  in  the  Apocalypse,  he  observes :  '  we 

1)  See  in  Dr.  Wilson,  ibid.  3)   Greg.  Nyss.  oper.  vol.  i.  p.  220. 

2)  See   in   Dr.  Wilson,  pp.   135,  4)  Vol.  i.  p.  372. 
136,  and  Dr.  Ayton,  p.  569. 


396  TESTIMONY    OF    EPIPHANIUS,  [BOOK  II. 

ought,  therefore,  to  understand  the  seven  angels  to  be  the 
rectors  or  presidents  of  the  seven  churches,1  because  angel 
means  messenger,  and  they  who  announce  the  word  of  God 
to  the  people  are  not  improperly  called  angels,  that  is,  mes- 
sengers.' Syricius  appears  to  have  written  to  Syrus,  the 
presbyter  of  Ambrose,2  to  reprove  him  for  inattention  to  his 
charge.  Ambrose  concurs,  denominating  Syrus  brother,  and 
co-presbyter,  ifratrem  nostrum  et  compresbyterum  Syrum? 
1 1  do  not  claim,'  he  says,  '  the  honor  of  the  apostles,  for  who 
had  this,  but  those  whom  the  Son  of  God  himself  chose ;  nor 
the  grace  of  prophets,  nor  the  authority  of  evangelists,  nor  the 
circumspection  of  pastors;  but  the  attention  "and  diligence 
concerning  the  divine  writings,  which  the  apostles  placed  last 
among  the  duties  of  the  saints,  I  wish  only  to  attain  ;  for, 
snatched  from  benches  of  justice,  and  robes  of  government, 
unto  the  priesthood,  I  have  begun  to  teach  you,  w*hat  I  have 
not  myself  learned.'3 

§  7.     The  testimony  of  Epiphanius,  and  of  the    Apostolical 
Constitutions  and  Canons. 

Epiphanius  was  metropolitan  of  Cyprus,  in  A.  D.  366. 
He  was  a  high-toned  prelate,  and  did  much  to  exalt  the  hier- 
archy to  its  bad  preeminence,  identifying  the  episcopal  authority 
with  the  sacerdotal  and  regal  officers  of  Christ.  Even  with 
him,  however,  the  bishop  is  a  pastor.  The  representation, 
already  given,  of  the  churches  in  Alexandria,  while  under 
their  respective  presbyters,  at  the  head  of  whom  was  the  pres- 
ident of  the  original  church,  is  fully  confirmed  by  Epipha- 
nius. '  They  say  that  he,  (Aerius,)  a  Lybian  by  descent, 
having  become  a  presbyter  in  Alexandria,  presided,  nqoiaram, 
over  a  church  called  Baucalis.  For  as  many  churches  as 
are  of  the  catholic  church,  at  Alexandria,  are  under  one  arch- 
bishop ;  and  over  these,  individually, pr&bytevs  are  placed,  to 
administer  to  the  ecclesiastical  exigences  of  the  neighboring 
inhabitants.'4 

The  Apostolical  Constitutions  which  are  attributed  to  Cle- 
ment, are  regarded  as  having  been,  in  substance,  composed 
in  the  third  century,  and  completed  in  the  fifth.'5  In  this  view, 

1)  Tom.  v.  p.  183.  Boyse's  Anct.  Episcop.  p.  173.    Jame- 

2)  Ibid,  p.  112.  son's  Sum,  &c.  pp.  156  -  160. 

3)  Amb.  torn.  iv.  1,  in  ibid.  5)  See    Daille    Proceni.    Codex. 

4)  Haer.  69,  s.  i.  in  Dr.  Wilson,  p.  Can.  et  lib.  i.  $  3,  4.  Boyse's  Anc. 
151.  Baxter  on  Episcop.  p.  96.  Bur-  Episc.  pp.  150-152.  Riddle's  Ch. 
ton's    Bampton    Lect.  p.   175.      See  Antiq.  p.   122.     Dr.    Wilson's    Prim. 

Govt.  pp.  151,152. 


CHAP.  IV.]        AND    THE    APOSTOLICAL    CONSTITUTIONS.  397 

says  Mr.  Riddle,1  they  contribute  to  give  us  an  insight  into  the 
state  of  christian  faith,  the  condition  of  the  clergy  and  inferior 
ecclesiastical  officers,  the  worship  and  discipline  of  the  church, 
and  other  particulars,  at  the  period  to  which  the  composition 
is  referred.  The  growth  of  the  episcopal  power  and  influ- 
ence, and  the  pains  and  artifices  employed,  in  order  to  derive 
it  from  the  apostles,  are  here  partially  developed. 

That  the  bishop,  described  in  these  works,  was  no  more 
than  a  congregational  or  parish-bishop,  is  evident  to  any,  that 
will  impartially  consider  the  following  quotations  :  Lib.  ii. 
cap.  10.  Having  exhorted  the  bishop  to  a  blameless  life, 
lest  he  bring  a  stain  on  his  own  dignity,  and  on  the 
church  of  God,  seated  in  his  parish,  they  thus  speak,  concern- 
ing the  scandalous  members  that  may  be  brought  before  him.2 
1  When  the  offender  shall  know,  that  the  bishop  and  dea- 
cons are  blameless,  and  the  flock  undefiled,  he  will,  at  first, 
being  terrified  in  his  own  conscience,  not  dare  contemptu- 
ously to  enter  into  the  church  of  God.  But  if,  not  regarding 
that,  he  shall  enter,  he  will  either  straight  be  reproved,  &c, 
and  punished,  or,  being  admonished  by  his  pastor,  he  will 
become  penitent.  And'having  beheld  every  one,  and  finding 
no  spot  (or  stain)  in  either  the  bishop  or  in  the  people  subject 
to  him,  being  filled  with  confusion  and  compunction,  he  will 
peaceably  go  out  with  shame,  and  with  many  tears.  And 
the  flock  will  continue  pure,  but  he  will  mourn  in  the  sight 
of  God  and  repent  of  his  sin ;  so  he  will  have  good  hope, 
and  the  whole  flock,  seeing  his  tears,  will  learn,  that  the  of- 
fender, by  repentance,  is  delivered  from  destruction.'  Again, 
cap.  18, '  Let  the  bishop  take  care  of  all,  both  of  those  that  have 
not  sinned,  that  they  may  persevere  in  their  innocence,  and  of 
those  that  have  sinned,  that  they  may  repent.  For  to  you  the 
Lord  saith,  see  that  ye  despise  not  one  of  these  little  ones. 
Wherefore,  take  upon  thee  the  care  of  all,  as  one  that  must  give 
an  account  to  God  for  many.  Preserve  the  sound,  reprove  of- 
fenders, and  raise  up  those  by  remission,  that  are  cast  down 
with  fasting,  and  receive  again  him  that  sighs,  the  whole 
church  interceding  for  him,  and  laying  hands  on  him,  suffer 
him  to  remain  with  the  flock.  But  for  the  drowsy  and  slug- 
gish, rouse,  support,  quicken,  encourage  him,  as  knowing 
how  great  a  reward  thou  wilt  receive,  if  thou  dost  it,  and 
how  great  a  danger  thou  wilt  incur  by  neglecting  it.'3 

Numerous  other  passages  might  be  quoted,  which  demon- 
strate the  fact,  that  whenever  these  constitutions  were  adopted 

1)  Christian  Antiq.  p.  122.  3)   Cap.  27,  28,  31,  34,  44,  54,  57, 

2)  Constitut.  Apostol.  lib.  ii.  cap.     58,  59.     Lib.  viii.  cap.  4,  30,  31. 
10.     See  also  cap.  12.  * 


398  THE    APOSTOLICAL    CANONS.  [BOOK   II. 

and  written,  the  bishop  was  nothing  more  than  a  presbyterian 
or  parochial  pastor.1 

This  is  equally  plain  from  the  apostolical  canons,2  Can. 
2  '  enjoins,  that  nothing  be  offered  at  the  altar,  but  oil  and 
incense.  But  all  other  fruits  were  to  be  sent  home,  and  not 
to  the  altar,  for  the  bishops  and  presbyters  ;  for  they  were  to 
distribute  them  to  the  deacons  and  other  clergy.'  Can.  6 
'  orders  the  excommunication  of  a  bishop  or  presbyter,  or 
deacon,  that  neglects  to  communicate  when  the  eucharist  is 
celebrated.'  Can.  7  '  orders  the  same  concerning  the  faith- 
ful, or  members  of  the  bishop's  church.'  Can.  11  '  forbids 
a  bishop  to  go  out.  of  his  parish  to  invade  another  man's. 
And  Can.  12  forbids  the  same  to  a  presbyter  or  other  clergy- 
man.' Can.  23.  '  If  any  bishop  obtain  a  church  by  the  inter- 
est of  secular  princes,  (or  rulers,)  let  him  be  deposed  and 
excommunicated,  and  all  that  communicate  with  him.'  Can. 
24.  '  If  any  presbyter,  despising  his  own  bishop,  shall  set  up 
a  congregation  apart,  and  set  up  another  altar,  (or  commun- 
ion-table,) when  he  cannot  justly  condemn  his  bishop,  for  any 
defect  of  piety  or  justice,  let  him  be  deposed,  as  one  desirous 
of  domination,  <fcc.'  See  also  Can.  27,  28.  Can.  50.  '  If  a 
bishop  or  presbyter  neglect  the  clergy  or  the  people,  and 
teach  them  not  piety,  let  him  be  excommunicated,  and  if  he 
continue  slothful,  let  him  be  deposed.' 

It  is  most  manifest,  says  Mr.  Boyse,  that  if  we  apply  all 
these  passages  to  a  parochial  bishop,  that  has  only  one  com- 
munion-table for  his  whole  church,  there  is  not  only  no  force 
offered  to  them,  but  every  thing  in  them  is  easy  and  plain, 
intelligible  and  accountable.  But  if  we  apply  them  to  a 
diocesan  bishop  and  a  diocesan  church,  there  is  such  a  heap 
of  contradictions  and  utter  impossibilities,  that  no  man  can 
digest  them,  whose  throat  is  not  wide  enough  to  swallow 
transubstantiation  itself. 

§  8.     The  testimony  of  Cmlus  Sedulus  Scotus,  and  of 
Chrysostom. 

This  British  author  flourished  about  the  year  390.  '  Cce- 
lus  Sedulus  Scotus,  one  of  the  ancientest  of  our  own  writers, 
says  Mr.  Prynne,3  flourishing  about  the  year  of  our  Lord  390, 
determines  thus  of  the  parity  of  bishops  and  presbyters,  by 
divine  right,  against  our  lordly  prelates'  doctrine,  in  these  days, 

1)  See  B.  ii.  c.  27,28,31,34,44,  3)  In    Prynne's   English   Lordly 
54,  57,  all  58,  59.     B.  viii.  c.  4,  30,  31.      Prelacy,  vol.  ii.  pp.  313,  314. 

2)  See  in  ibid,  p.  140,  &c. 


CHAP.  IV.]  SEDULUS    SCOTUS,    AND    CHRYSOSTOM.  399 

in  his  exposition  on  Titus,  chapter  1.  For  a  bishop  must  be 
blameless,  &c.  He  calleth  him  a  bishop,  whom  before  he  nam- 
ed a  presbyter.  Before,  by  the  devil's  instinct,  parties  were 
made  in  religion,  and  it  was  said  among  the  people,  I  am  of 
Paul,  but  I  am  of  Apollos,  and  I  am  of  Cephas,  the  churches 
were  governed  with  the  common  counsel  of  the  presbyters ; 
but  after  that  every  one  thought  those  whom  he  baptized  to  be 
his,  not  Christ's,  it  was  decreed,  throughout  the  world,  that  one 
chosen  of  the  presbyters  should  be  set  over  the  rest,  to  whom 
all  the  care  of  the  church  should  appertain,  and  that  the  seeds 
of  schisms  should  be  taken  away.  In  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles 
it  is  written,  that  when  the  apostle  Paul  came  to  Miletus,  he 
sent  to  Ephesus,  and  called  the  elders  of  that  church,  unto 
whom,  among  other  things,  he  spake  thus  :  Take  heed  to 
yourselves,  and  to  all  the  flock  over  which  the  Holy  Ghost 
hath  made  you  bishops,  to  feed  the  church  of  God,  which  he 
hath  purchased  with  his  own  blood.  And  here  observe  more 
diligently,  how  that  he,  calling  the  elders  of  but  one  city, 
Ephesus,  doth  afterwards  style  them  bishops  ;  these  things  I 
have  alleged,  that  we  might  show  how,  that  among  the  an- 
cients, fuisse  presbyteros  quos  episcopos,  presbyters  to  have 
been  the  same  that  bishops  were  ;  but,  by  little  and  little,  that 
the  seeds  of  dissension  might  be  utterly  extirpated,  the  whole 
care  was  transferred  to  one.'  And  on  1  Timothy,  53,  it 
is  demanded,  (writes  he,)  why  Paul  here  makes  no  men- 
tion of  presbyters,  but  only  of  bishops  and  deacons  ?  Sed 
etiam  ipsos  in  episcoporum  nomine  comprchendit ;  but  truly 
he  also  comprehended!  ihem  in  the  name  of  bishops.' 

Chrysostom  was  bishop  of  Constantinople,  A.  D.  398. 
Although  he  went  entirely  along  with  the  prelatical  system 
of  his  day,  he  evidently  did  not  find  support  in  the  scrip- 
tures for  any  thing  like  the  divine  right  of  diocesan  episco- 
pacy. Having  recited  1  Tim.  3:3- 10,  he  observes  :  '  Hav- 
ing spoken  of  bishops  and  characterized  them,  saying  both 
what  they  should  possess,  and  from  what  they  should  abstain, 
and  omitting  the  order  of  presbyters,  Paul  has  passed 
over  to  the  deacons.  But  why  is  this  ?  Because  there  is 
not  much  difference.  For  these,  also,  in  like  manner,  have 
been  set  over  the  teaching  and  government  of  the  church, 
and  what  things  he  has  said  concerning  bishops,  the  same 
also  he  intended  for  presbyters  ;  for  they  have  gained  the 
ascendency  over  them  only  in  respect  of  ordaining,  and  of 
this  thing  also  they  appear  to  have  robbed  the  presbyters.' l 

1)  Wks.  vol.  ix.  p.  1574. 


THE  TESTIMONY  OF  CHRYSOSTOM      [BOOK  II, 

The  condition  of  the  church  could  have  then  been  better 
known  to  no  one  than  to  this  primate  ;  yet,  when  discoursing 
on  the  scriptures,  he  expressly  allows  government  and  doc- 
trine to  have  been  given  equally,  and  by  the  same  means,  to 
presbyters  and  to  bishops;  that  the  latter  had  gained  the 
ascendency  only  in  ordination,  which  they  had  injuriously 
taken  from  the  presbyters  ;  for  such  is  the  force  of  Tileovexreiv, 
followed  by  an  accusative.1 

The  bishop,  as  represented  by  Chrysostom,  was  clearly 
not  a  diocesan  prelate,  but  the  presiding  officer  in  one  single 
congregation.  Thus  on  Titus,  3  :  6,  he  says:  '  That  thou 
mayest  ordain  elders,  says  the  apostle.  He  means  bishops. 
In  every  city,  says  he,  for  he  would  not  have  the  whole  island 
committed  to  one  man  ;  but  that  every  one  should  have  and 
mind  his  own  proper  cure ;  for  so  he  knew  the  labor  would 
be  easier  to  him,  and  the  people  to  be  governed  would  have 
more  care  taken  of  them ;  since  their  teacher  would  not  run 
about  to  govern  many  churches,  but  would  attend  to  the  rul- 
ing of  one  only,  and  so  would  keep  it  in  good  order.'  In 
his  work  on  the  priesthood,  he  styles  presbyters  '  the  court  or 
sanhedrim  of  the  presbyters,'  thus  giving  to  them  the  power 
of  jurisdiction.2  In  Homily  1,  on  Phil,  he  teaches,  that  in 
the  beginning,  the  same  individual  was  called  presbyter  and 
bishop,3  in  glorious  contradiction  to  his  attempted  limitation 
of  these  passages  to  bishops,  and  thus  proving  his  interior 
convictions.  This  appears  also  from  the  manner  in  which 
he  speaks  of  the  priesthood,  and  the  supereminent  dignity  he 
ascribes  to  it.4 

§  9.     The  testimony  of  Jerome. 

Jerome  flourished  about  A.  D.  380,  and  was  universally  re- 
garded as  one  of  the  most  pious  and  learned  men  of  his  day. 
Erasmus  says,  that '  he  was,  without  controversy,  the  most 
learned  of  all  christians,  the  prince  of  divines,  and,  for 
eloquence,  he  excelled  Cicero.'  There  is  no  name  among 
all  the  fathers,  which  carries  with  it  greater  influence  and 
authority,  throughout  the  prelatic  hierarchy,  than  that  of  Je- 
rome. Nor  is  there  any  other  individual  who  has  given  his 
testimony  more  fully  in  favor  of  presbytery,  as  the  true,  prim- 
itive, and  apostolical  form  of  church  government. 

1)  Dr.  Wilson,  p.  157.  4)  See    the    passages    given    in 

2)  Lib.  iii.  c.  15.     Plea  for  Presb.  Clarke's  Sacred  Literat.  vol.  ii.  pp.  64, 
p.  189.  65,  Eng.ed. 

3)  Works,  torn.  ii.  p.  224. 


CHAP.   IV.]  AND    JEROME.  401 

We  will  first  present  the  substance  of  this  testimony.  In 
his  Commentary  on  Titus  we  have  the  following  passage. l 
4  Let  us  diligently  attend  to  the  words  of  the  apostle,  who, 
discoursing  in  what  follows,  what  sort  of  presbyter  is  to  be 
ordained,  saith,  if  any  one  be  blameless,  the  husband  of  one 
wife,  &c,  afterwards  adds,  for  a  bishop  must  be  blameless, 
as  the  steward  of  God,  &c  A  presbyter,  therefore,  is  the 
same  as  a  bishop  ;  and  before  there  were,  by  the  devil's 
instinct,  parties  in  religion,  and  it  was  said  among  the  people, 
I  am  of  Paul,  I  of  Apollos,  and  I  of  Cephas,2  the  churches 
were  governed  by  the  common  council  of  presbyters.  But 
afterwards,  when  every  one  thought,  that  those  whom  he 
baptized  were  rather  his  than  Christ's,  it  was  determined, 
through  the  whole  world,  that  one  of  the  presbyters  should  be 
set  above  the  rest,  to  whom  all  care  of  the  church  should 
belong,  that  the  seeds  of  schism  might  be  taken  away.  If 
any  suppose,  that  it  is  merely  our  opinion,  and  not  that  of  the 
scriptures,  that  bishop  and  presbyter  are  the  same,  and  that 
one  is  the  name  of  age,  the  other  of  office,  let  him  read  the 
words  of  the  apostles  to  the  Philippians,  saying,  Paid  and 
Timothy,  the  servants  of  Jesus  Christ,  to  all  the  saints  in 
Christ  Jesus  that  are  at  Philippi,  with  the  bishops  and  deacons. 
Philippi  is  a  city  of  Macedonia,  and  certainly,  in  one  city, 
there  could  not  be  more  than  one  bishop,  as  they  are  noiu 
styled.  But  at  that  time  they  called  the  same  men  bishops 
whom  they  called  presbyters ;  therefore,  he  speaks  indiffer- 
ently of  bishops  as  of  presbyters.  This  may  seem,  even  yet, 
doubtful  to  some,  till  it  be  proved  by  another  testimony.  It 
is  written,  in  the  Acts  of  the  apostles,  that  when  the  apostle 
came  to  Miletus  he  sent  to  Ephesus,  and  called  the  presbyters 
of  that  church,  to  whom,  among  other  things,  he  said,  Take 
heed  to  yourselves,  &c.  Here  observe  diligently,  that  calling 
together  the  presbyters  of  one  city,  Ephesus,  he  afterwards  styles 
the  same  persons  bishops.  If  any  will  receive  that  epistle, 
which  is  written  in  the  name  of  Paul  to  the  Hebrews,  there  also 

t)  Hieron.    Op.   torn-  iv.  p.  413,  epistle  to  the  Corinthians.     In  the  sec- 

Bened.  ed.  ond  place,  that  language  of  the  apostle, 

2)  '  Some  episcopal  writers  have  one  saith,  I  am  of  Paul,  and  another,  I 

attempted,  from  this  allusion  of  Jerome,  am  of  Ap olios,  &c,  has  been  familiarly 

to  1  Cor.  1  :  12,  to  infer,  that  he  dates  applied  in  every  a«;e,  by  way  of  allu- 

episeopacyasearlyasthedisputeat  Co-  sion,to  actual  divisions  in  the  church. 

rinth.  to  which  this  passage  refers.  But  And  were  those  who  put  this  construc- 

this  inference  is  effectually  refuted  by  tion  on  Jerome,  a  little  better  aequaint- 

two  considerations.     In  the  first  place,  ed  with  his  writings,  they  would  know, 

Jerome  adduces  proof,  that  bishop  and  that,  in  another  place,  he  himself  ap- 

presbyter  were  originally  the  same,  from  plies  the  same  passage  to  some  disturb- 

portions  of  the  New  Testament,  which  ers  of  the  church's  peace  io  the  fourth 

were  certainly  written  after  the  first  century.'     Dr.  Miller. 

51 


402  THE    TESTIMONY    OF    JEROME  [BOOK    II. 

the  care  of  the  church  is  equally  divided  among  many,  since 
he  writes  to  the  people,  Obey  them  that  have  the  rule  over 
you,  &c.  And  Peter,  (so  called  from  the  firmness  of  his  faith,) 
in  his  epistle,  saith,  The  presbyters  which  are  among  you,  &c. 
These  things  I  have  written  to  show,  that  among  the  an- 
cients, presbyters  and  bishops  were  the  same.  But,  by  little 
and  little,  that  all  the  seeds  of  dissension  might  be  plucked 
up,  the  whole  care  was  devolved  on  one.  As,  therefore,  the 
presbyters  know,  that  by  the  custom  of  the  church,  they  are 
subject  to  him  who  is  their  president,  so  let  bishops  know, 
that  they  are  above  presbyters  more  by  the  custom  of  the 
church,  than  by  the  true  dispensation  of  christ  ;  and 
that  they  ought  to  rule  the  church  in  common,  imitating 
Moses,  who,  when  he  might  alone  rule  the  people  of  Israel, 
chose  seventy  with  whom  he  might  judge  the  people.' 

These  sentiments  Jerome  has  repeated,  at  length,  in  an 
epistle  written  to  Evagrius,1  and  to  Oceanum.2 

Such  were  the  opinions  of  Jerome,  near  the  close  of  the 
fourth  century,  and  in  the  face  of  an  established  hierarchy. 
From  these  extracts  it  will  appear  manifest  that  in  Jerome's 
judgment,  bishops  and  presbyters  were,  in  the  beginning,  one 
and  the  same  in  title,  in  office,  and  in  power ;  that  in  his  day  a 
departure  had  taken  place  from  the  primitive  model,  by 
making  a  distinction  between  bishops  and  presbyters,  neither 
warranted  by  scripture  nor  conformable  to  the  apostolic 
model,  but  originating  in  the  decay  of  piety  and  the  ambi- 
tion of  prelates;  that  this  change  was  introduced, by  little  and 
little,  the  original  president,  or  moderator,  gradually  assuming 
the  rank  of  a  distinct  and  superior  order;  that  the  first  pre- 
eminence of  bishops  wTas  such  only  as  the  presbyters  were 
able  to  confer,  they  having  been  chosen  by  presbyters ;  and, 
finally,  that  deacons  were  not  an  order  of  ministers  at  all, but 
a  class  of  ecclesiastical  officers.3  And  that  we  do  not  misun- 
derstand the  meaning  of  Jerome,  may  be  shown  by  the 
admissions  of  the  learned.  The  archbishop  of  Spalato 
acknowledges  that  Jerome  can,  by  no  force,  be  reconciled  to 
the  cause  of  prelacy.4  Medina,  we  have  seen,  affirms  the 
same  thing.  Alphonsus  de  Castro  reproves  Thomas  Wal- 
densis  for  attempting  to  pervert  the  testimony  of  Jerome.5 
Sara  via  allows  that  Jerome  agreed  with  Aerius.8     Thorndike 

1)  Hieron.    Ep.    ad.  Evagr.    Op.  4)  De    Rep.   Eccl.    lib.   2,   c.   4. 
torn.  ii.  p.  109.  Numb.  46  in  Jameson's  Fund  p.  21. 

2)  Op.  torn.  ii.  p.  106,  in  ibid.  5)  Contra  Haeres.  fol.  103.    B.  in 

3)  See  Dr.  Miller  on  the  Min.  pp.  ibid,  22. 

122,  123.  6)  See  above. 


CHAP.  IV.]  IN    FAVOR    OF    PRESBYTERY.  403 

admits  the  same  fact.1  Bishop  Bedell  says,  'that  a  bishop 
and  presbyter  are  all  one,  as  Jerome  proves  from  scripture 
and  antiquity.'2  Dr.  Willet  repeatedly  testifies  to  the  truth 
of  our  interpretation,3  and  adduces  Bellarmine  as  doing  the 
same  against  Delphinus.4  Nay,  our  interpretation  is  appro- 
ved by  pope  Gregory  the  seventh,  and  is  therefore  infallibly 
correct.5  It  is  unnecessary  to  produce  any  further  authority 
in  support  of  our  opinion.  We  will  only,  therefore,  add,  that 
Hooker,  after  exerting  all  his  ability  to  put  a  prelatieal  con- 
struction upon  Jerome,  has  left  us  his  own  solemn  declara- 
tion that  it  was  all  useless  and  wrong.  '  This  answer  to 
Saint  Jerome,'  says  he,  in  his  revision  of  his  Polity,  '  seem- 
eth  dangerous.  I  have  qualified  it,  as  I  may,  by  some  words 
of  restraint ;  yet,  I  satisfy  not  myself.  In  my  judgment,  it 
should  be  altered.'6 

It  is  alleged,  however,  that  in  other  passages,  Jerome 
approves  of  the  system  of  prelacy,  and  of  the  three  orders. 
That  this  was  the  established  system  of  the  church,  in 
Jerome's  day,  we  do  not  question,  nor  that  he  went  along 
with  the  church  in  upholding  it.  But  this  has  nothing  to  do 
with  the  private  opinion  of  Jerome,  as  to  what  was  the  prim- 
itive and  original  constitution  of  the  church.  Attempts  have 
also  been  made  to  torture  several  passages  of  Jerome,  so  as 
to  make  ihem  contradictory  to  this  deliberate  expression  of 
his  opinion.  But  it  is  unnecessary  here  to  repeat  the  full 
replies,  which  have  been  given  to  this  objection,  by  Stilling- 
fleet  and  others.7  After  examining  them  all,  Stillingfleet 
declares,  that8  'among  all  the  fifteen  testimonies  produced  by 
a  learned  writer,  out  of  Jerome,  for  the  superiority  of  bishops 
above  presbyters,  I  cannot  find  one  that  does  found  it  upon 
divine  right,  but  only  on  the  conveniency  of  such  an  order, 
for  the  peace  and  unity  of  the  church  of  God.  But  granting 
some  passages  may  have  a  more  favorable  aspect  towards  the 
superiority  of  bishops  above  presbyters,  in  his  other  writings, 
I  would  fain  know  whether  a  man's  judgment  must  be 
taken  from  occasional  and  incidental  passages,  or  from 
designed  or  set  discourses?     Which  is  as  much  as  to  ask, 

1)  Prim.  Govt,  of  the   Church,  c.  7)  Trcnicum.part  ii.  c.  7.     Boyse's 
7,  p.  69.  Anct.    Christ,  pp.  1S2-200.     Gondr's 

2)  In  Welles's  Vind.  p.  142.  Div.  Rule  of  Faith,  vol.  li.  pp.  8-!.  86. 

3)  Synop.  Papismi,  pp.  274,  275,  Jameson's   Sum  of   the  Episc.  Contr. 
277.  p.  180,  &c.     Dr.  Wilson's  Prim.  Govt 

4)  Ibid,  p.  275.  pp.  148-  176,  where  he  notices  the  sev- 

5)  Binii  Concil  torn,  vii.p.  474.  era!  objections. 

6)  Eccl.   Pol.  B.  vii.  S  5-  and  Mc  8)  Iren.  p.  277. 
Crie's  Life  of  Melville,  vol.  i.  p.  462. 


404  THE    TESTIMONY    OF    AUGUSTINE,  [BOOK   II. 

whether  the  lively  representation  of  a  man,  by  picture,  may 
be  best  taken,  when,  in  haste  of  other  business,  he  passes  by 
us,  giving  only  a  glance  of  his  countenance ;  or  when  he 
purposely  and  designedly  sits,  in  order  to  that  end,  that  his 
countenance  may  be  truly  represented  V  1 

§  10.   The  testimony  of  Augustine. 

Augustine  was  bishop  of  Hippo,  in  Africa,  and  flourished 
A.  D.  395.  Writing  to  Jerome,  who  was  a  presbyter,  he  says,2 
'  I  entreat  you  to  correct  me  faithfully,  when  you  see  I  need 
it;  for,  although,  according  to  the  names  of  honor, which  the 
custom  of  the  church  has  now  brought  into  use,  the  office  of 
bishop  is  greater  than  that  of  presbyter,  nevertheless,  in  many 
respects,  Augustine  is  inferior  to  Jerome.'  Epist.  19,  ad 
hierom.  It  is  worthy  of  notice  that  bishop  Jewel  in  the  'De- 
fence of  his  Apology  for  the  Church  of  England,'  produces 
this  passage  for  the  express  purpose  of  showing  the  original 
identity  of  bishop  and  presbyter,  and  translates  it  thus:  'The 
office  of  bishop  is  above  the  office  of  priest,  not  by  authority 
of  the  scriptures,  but  after  the  names  of  honor  which  the 
custom  of  the  church  hath  now  obtained.'3  Again  he  des- 
cribes the  orders  of  his  day  in  Africa.4  '  A  higher  order  con- 
tains in,  and  with  itself,  that  which  is  less,  for  the  presbyter 
performs  also  the  duty  of  the  deacon,  and  of  the  exorcist,  and 
of  the  reader  Also,  that  a  presbyter  is  to  be  understood  to 
be  a  bishop,  the  apostle  Paul  proves,  when  he  instructs  Tim- 
othy, whom  he  had  ordained  a  presbyter,  what  kind  of  a 
bishop  he  ought  to  create ;  for  what  is  a  bishop  but  a  primus 
presbyter,  that  is,  a  high  priest,  and  he  calls  them  no  other- 
wise than  his  co-presbyters,  and  co-priests,  and  may  not  the 
bishop  also  his  deacons,  his  fellow-servants  ? ' 

§  11.   The   testimony  of  Paphnutius,  Synesius,  Pelagius,  and 

Severus. 

Paphnutius  lived  A.  D.  390.  According  to  Cassian,  he, 
while  himself  only  a  presbyter,  ordained  Daniel  the  hermit, 
his     disciple,   first   a   deacon,    and  afterwards    a   presbyter. 

1)  On   his  whole  testimony,  see  3)  Defence,  122,  123. 

also  Dr.  Miller,  on  the  Min.     Pierce's  4)  Op.  torn.  iv.  p.  780.     In  Dr. 

Vind.  of  Dissent,  part  iii.  c.  l,pp.  74-  Wilson,  p.  182.     Indeed,  these   ques- 

80.     Dr.  Rice,  Evang.  Mag.  vol.  x.  pp.  tions  were    not  Hilary's,  as    Blondel 

629, 630.  thought. 

2)  Ep.  19,  ad   Hieron.     See  Dr. 
Miller  on  Min.  p.  124. 


CIIAF.  IV.]  PAPANUTIUS,    AND    SEVERUS.  405 

Whence  it  follows,  as  Blondel  argues,  that  the  power  of 
ordination  was  regarded,  even  then,  as  inherently  belonging 
to  presbyters.1  Synesius  was  bishop  of  Ptolemais,  in  Penta- 
polis,  A.  D.  410.  '  He2  distributes  ihe  officers  of  the  church 
into  the  Levite,  the  presbyter,  and  the  bishop,  the  latter  of 
whom  he  denominates  the  priest  of  a  city,  his  office  a  priest- 
hood, and  speaks  of  the  election  of  a  bishop,  and  of  the 
imposition  of  the  hand,  whereby  the  party  is  manifested  a 
presbyter.  Pelagius  flourished  A.  D.  405,  and  thereabouts. 
In  his  Commentary  on  1  Tim.  3,  he  says,3  '  Why  did  the 
apostle  make  no  mention  of  presbyters,  but  comprehend  them 
under  the  name  of  bishops  ?  because  they  are  the  second,  yea, 
almost  one  and  the  same  degree  with  bishops,  as  the  apostle 
writes,  in  the  epistle  to  the  Philippians ;  to  the  bishops  and 
deacons ;  when  yet  in  one  city  there  cannot  be  more  bishops 
than  one.  And  in  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles,  Paul  having,  in 
his  way  to  Jerusalem,  called  the  elders  of  Ephesus,  among 
other  things,  said,  '  take  heed  unto  the  flock,  in  which  the 
Holy  Ghost  has  ordained  you  bishops.'  Besides,  on  1  Cor. 
1,  '  He  declares  all  priests  to  be  the  successors  of  the 
apostles.' 

Severus,  of  the  Sulpician  family,  was  presbyter  of  Argen, 
and  died  A.  D.  420.  '  Speaking  of  the  military  guard,'  says 
Dr.  Wilson,  directed  by  the  emperor  Hadrian  to  be  con- 
stantly kept  at  Jerusalem,  he  observes,  that  until  that  period, 
'  the  church  had  no  priest  at  Jerusalem,  except  of  the  circum- 
cision, and  that  their  first  Mark,  of  Gentile  extraction,  was 
made  their  bishop.'  Priests,  Levites,  altars,  sacrifices,  and 
other  words  proper  to  Jewish  and  Pagan  worship,  were  not 
introduced  till  after  the  days  of  the  apostles,  into  the  christian 
church ;  and  sacerdos,  here  promiscuously  used  with  cpiscopus, 
at  its  first  introduction,  designated  only  the  presbyter,  which 
the  occasional  insertion  summits,  by  this  writer,  to  distinguish 
the  bishop,  still  viewed  as  the  primus  presbyter,  plainly  evin- 
ces. '  In  the  history  of  his  own  times,  he  mentions  the  fact, 
that  Priscilianus  made  a  layman  bishop  of  Abila.  Priscilia- 
nus  etiam  laicum  episcopum  in  Labinensi,  (Abilensi  apud 
Hieron,)  oppido  constitute.' 

1)  Cassianus    Collatione  4.  c.  1.  3)  See    given  in    Ayton's    Orig. 
See  in  Natali  Alexandra,  p.  142.                Constit.  of  the  Chr.  Ch.  p.  571,  and 

2)  In  Dr.  Wilson,  p.  185.  Jameson's  Fund.  p.  176. 

4)  Prim.  Govt.  pp.  185, 186. 


406  THE    TESTIMONY    OF    THEODORET,  [BOOK   II. 


§  12.   TJie  testimony  of   Theodoret,  Primasius,    Sedulius,  the 
Paulicians,  and  others. 

Theodoret  flourished  A.  D.  423.  In  his  Commentary  on 
1  Tim.  3,  he  says,1  'The  apostles  call  a  presbyter  a  bishop, 
as  we  showed  when  we  expounded  the  epistle  to  the  Philip- 
pi  ans,  and  which  may  be  also  learned  from  this  place,  for 
after  the  precepts  proper  to  bishops,  he  describes  the  things 
which  belong  to  deacons.  But,  as  I  said,  of  old  they  called 
the  same  men  both  bishops  and  presbyters.'  Primasius  was 
contemporary  with  Theodoret,  and  reputed  to  be  the  disciple 
of  Augustine.  In  explaining  1  Tim.  3,  he  asks,2 'why  the 
apostle  leaps  from  the  duties  of  bishops  to  the  duties  of  dea- 
cons, without  any  mention  of  presbyters?'  and  answers, 
'  because  bishops  and  presbyters  are  the  same  degree.'  Se- 
dulius, also,3  who  lived  in  the  same  age,  on  Titus  1,  expressly 
asserts  the  identity  of  bishop  and  presbyter.  He  declares, 
not  only  that  the  titles  are  interchangeably  applied  to  the 
same  men,  but  also  that  the  office  is  the  same ;  many  of  them 
being  found  in  the  primitive  church,  in  one  city,  which  could 
not  be  true  of  diocesan  bishops.  Again,  in  the  second  coun- 
cil of  Carthage,  A.  D.  428,  canon  5,  it  was4  observed,  that 
until  that  time  some  dioceses  had  been  without  any  bishop 
at  all,  when  it  was  determined  that  these  should  have  none  for 
the  future. 

The  council  of  Arausicana  was  held  A.  D.  441.  In  the 
thirtieth  canon  it  is  decreed,  '  that  if  any  bishop,  on  account 
of  any  infirmity  or  debility,  should  lose  his  powers,  or  the 
ability  to  speak,  those  things  which,  ordinarily,  are  conducted 
by  bishops,  he  shall  permit  the  presbyters  to  do,  non  sub  prcs- 
sentia  sua]  from  which  it  is  plain  that  all  exclusive  prelatical 
assumptions  are  based  only  upon  ecclesiastical  custom.5 

The  fourth  council  of  Carthage  was  held  A  D.  436. 6  In 
canon  35th  it  is  decreed,  that  a  bishop  should  not  be  exercised 
in  the  affairs  of  his  household,  but  wholly  give  himself  to 
reading,  praying,  and  preaching  the  word.  This  council,  says 
Ayton,7  was  held  about  the  year  436.  And  what  is  men- 
tioned from  it,  is  an  evident  discovery  that  the  dignity  of  the 

1)  Opera,  torn.  iv.  p.  652.     Halae,  5)  Blondel,  in  Nat.  Alex.  p.  143. 
771.     Also  in  Di.  Miller,  p.  126.  Binii  Concil.  torn.  ii.  p.  692,  &c. 

2)  Dr.  Miller  on  Min.  p.  126.  6)  Binii  Concil.  torn.  i.  pp.  726, 

3)  In  Dr.  Miller,  p.  126.  729.     See  in  Jameson's  Cyp.  Isot.  pp. 

4)  Carauz.  Sum.  Concil.  Carth.  2,    441  -443, where  may  be  seen  Chamier 
canto  5.     In  Ayton,  p.  533.  and  Salmasius,  on  it. 

7)  P.  547. 


CHAP.  IV.]  PRIMASIUS,    SEDULIUS,    AND    OTHERS.  407 

episcopal  office  was  then  reckoned  to  consist  in  teaching  and 
preaching,  and  not  in  secular  power.  The  same  council 
says,  in  their  third  canon,  when  a  presbyter  is  ordained,  the 
bishop  blessing  him,  and  holding  his  hand  on  his  head,  all 
the  presbyters  present  are  also  to  hold  their  hands  on  his  head, 
together  with  the  bishop.  Again,  in  the  twenty-third  canon, 
it  is  expressly  determined,  that  a  bishop  ought  not  to  hear  any 
cause  but  in  the  presence  of  the  clergy.  And  to  give  a  fur- 
ther view  of  the  remaining  equality,  that  at  this  time  was 
preserved  between  bishops  and  presbyters,  it  is  enacted  in  the 
thirty-fourth  canon,  that  if  a  bishop  shall  be  sitting  in  any 
place,  the  presbyter  is  not  to  be  allowed  to  stand.  And  in 
the  thirty-fifth,  let  the  bishop  in  the  church,  in  the  assembly  of 
the  presbyters,  have  the  highest  seat ;  yet,  in  his  house,  he 
must  know  that  the  presbyters  are  his  colleagues.  Thus, 
then,  presbyters  and  bishops  being  colleagues,  this  must,  at 
once,  discover  their  original  equality.  '  The  council  of 
Aquisgrave,1  canon  8,  decided,  that  the  ordination  and  con- 
secration of  ministers  is  now  reserved  to  the  chief  ministry, 
solum  propter  auctoritatem,  only  for  authority  sake,  lest  that 
the  discipline  of  the  church,  being  challenged  by  many,  should 
break  the  peace  of  the  church.' 

It  is  unnecessary  to  continue  these  testimonies.  Numerous 
others  have  been  already  adduced,  under  former  heads,  and 
by  Blondel,  and  others.2  But  these  are  enough,  and  more 
than  enough,  to  secure  our  purpose,  which  is  to  demonstrate, 
that,  even  during  the  progress  of  the  hierarchy,  the  original 
presbyterianism  of  the  church's  polity  was  not  forgotten ; 
that  traces  of  it  still  continued  to  exist;  that  many  openly 
avowed  their  belief  in  it,  while  satisfied  with  existing  arrange- 
ments; and  that,  even  when  prelatical  dignity  had  been  fully 
established,  it  was  not  pretended  that  it  was  based  upon  any 
certain  and  positive  divine  right.  It  may,  however,  be 
important,  further  to  show  that  these  views  were  not  confined 
to  individuals,  but  extended  to  large  bodies  of  christians,  to 
adduce  the  testimony  of  the  Paulicians.  About  the  year 
A.  D.  600,  there  lived  in  Samosata,  not  far  from  the  borders 
of  Armenia  and  Syria,  a  man  named  Constantine.  Becom- 
ing possessed  of  a  Greek  New  Testament,  he  was  led,  by  its 
careful  examination,  to  reject,  among  other  errors,  the  dogma 

1)  Willet's  Syn.  Pap.  p.  277.  vol.  xx.  p.  153,  &c.  and  132.     Pierce's 

2)  See  Blondeli  Apol.  and  in  Nat.  Vind.    of  Dissenters,    part    iii.   c.    1, 
Alex.  pp.  124,  137,  139,  144,  151.     See  p.   63,    &c.      Henderson's    Rev.    and 
the  testimonies  of  the  fathers,  gener-  Cons'd,  p.  364.     Plea  for  Presb.  p.  240, 
ally,  given  in   Cochet's   Remains,  p.  &c.     Elliot  on  Rom.  vol.  i.  p.  468,  &c. 
T10,  fee.  and   108,  &c.     Owen's   Wks. 


408  TESTIMONY    OF    THE    PAULIClANS.  [BOOK    II. 

of  three  orders  of  the  clergy,  and  to  believe  that  all  religious 
teachers  were  '  equal  in  rank,'  and  to  be  '  distinguished  from 
laymen  by  no  rights,  prerogatives,  or  insignia.'  In  short,  he 
repudiated  the  whole  hierarchical  system  then  established, 
with  all  its  pernicious  and  unscriptural  doctrines.1  He, 
accordingly,  began  to  preach  '  primitive  Christianity,'  in  the 
regions  of  Pontus  and  Cappadocia,  where  he  found  numer- 
ous persons  ready,  with  him,  to  contend,  earnestly,  for  the 
faith,  simplicity,  order,  and  liberty  of  the  gospel.  This  new 
sect,  which,  out  of  respect  for  their  favorite  apostle,  were 
called  Paulicians,  spread  rapidly  over  Asia  Minor.  The  fiery 
sword  of  persecution  was  unsheathed  against  them,  but  out 
of  the  blood  and  ashes  of  their  martyrs,  new  teachers  and 
converts  arose.  After  enduring  a  century  and  a  half  of  per- 
secution, they  enjoyed  a  short  respite,  in  A.  D.  802 -811,  only 
to  suffer  a  more  severe  and  terrible  extermination.  Flying 
from  destruction,  they  carried  with  them,  as  on  the  wings  of 
the  wind,  the  seed  of  immortal  truth,  which,  taking  root  every 
where,  diffused,  as  in  apostolic  days,  the  truth,  as  it  is  in 
Jesus.  Under  Michael  III,  one  hundred  thousand  Pauli- 
cians were  barbarously  slain,  to  attest  the  sincerity  of  his 
christian  decree,  that  they  should  be  either  exterminated  by 
fire  and  sword,  or  brought  back  to  the  Greek  church. 

In  the  tenth  century,  the  European  Paulicians  were 
recruited  by  emigrations  from  their  native  regions,  and  by 
new  proselytes.  Their  villages  and  castles  extended  from 
Thrace,  through  Macedonia  and  Epirus,  towards  the  Adri- 
atic. In  the  eleventh  century  they  were  numerous  in  Lom- 
bardy  and  Isubria,  and  especially  in  Milan,  and  were  found, 
also,  in  France,  Germany,  Italy,  and  other  countries,  where 
they  were  known  as  the  Paterini,  Cathari,  Puritans,  and 
Albigenses.  By  the  gloomy  light  of  inquisitorial  fires,  and 
Romish  calumny,  false  witness,  and  abuse,  we  may  trace 
these  suffering  witnesses  for  truth  and  order,  even  to  the 
period  of  the  reformation,  when  their  light  was  merged  in 
that  full  blaze,  which  burst  upon  an  emancipated  church. 
The  testimony  of  other  bodies,  such  as  the  Culdees,  the 
Alexandrian  church,  the  Goths,  the  Irish,  and  British  christ- 
ians, will  be  adduced  when  we  come  to  speak  of  the  Anti- 
quity of  Presbyterianism.2 

1)  See  Mosheim,  B.  iii.  Cent,  ix,  teresting  sketch  in  Punehard's  Hist,  of 
part  ii.  c.  5.  Congreg.  e.  iv.  p.  79,  &c.  to  which  we 

2)  See  a  full  exposure  of  the  most  are  indebted.  Vaughan's  Life  of 
guilty  and  felonious  calumnies  of  their  Wickliff'e,  vol.i.  pp.  114-127.  Blair's 
torturers,  the  Romanists,  in  Faber's  Hist,  of  the  Waldenses,  vol.  i.  176- 
able  work  on  the  Vallenses  and  Albi-  180.  Clarke's  Hist,  of  Intolerance, 
genses,  B.  ii.  c.  l,&c.     See  also  an  in-  vol.  ii.  pp.  273  -  289. 


CHAPTER  V. 


THE  TESTIMONY  OF  THE  SCHOOLMEN,  OR  FATHERS  OF  THE 

LATER  AND  MIDDLE  AGES,  TO  THE  CLAIMS 

OF  PRESBYTERY. 


Mr.  Palmer,  after  showing  that  many  of  the  fathers  assert 
the  identity  of  bishops  and  presbyters,  adds,1  '  To  these  may 
be  added  the  great  body  of  the  schoolmen,  Hugo  Victor,  Peter 
Lombard,  Alexander  Alensis,  Bonaventura,  Albertus  Mag- 
nus, Thomas  Aquinus,  Scotus,  Abulensis,  Turrecremata, 
Cajetan,  &c.  Many  teach  that  the  episcopate  is  only  an 
extension  of  the  sacerdotal  order,  such  as  Durandus,  Paluda- 
nus,  Dominic  Soto,  &c.'  Mr.  Sinclair  acknowledges  the 
same  thing,  and  that  quite  in  a  rage.2  Bishop  Davenant  and 
archbishop  Usher,3  Dr.  Bowden,4  and  archdeacon  Mason,5 
testify  to  the  same  effect. 6 

The  canons,  says  Lombard,7  determine  that  two  orders 
only  ought,  by  way  of  excellency,  to  be  termed  sacred,  name- 
ly, that  of  the  diaconate,  and  that  of  the  presbyterate,  because 
we  read  that  the  primitive  church  had  only  these  two,  and  of 
these  alone  we  have  the  command  of  the  apostles.' 

Isidore  Hispalensis,  A.  D.  596,  Etymol.  vii.  c.  12,  copies 
with  approbation  the  passage  already  given  from  Jerome's 
epistle  to  Oceanum.  Dionysius,  A.  D.  556,  on  Phil.  1 :  l,s 
gives  the  following  exposition.  '  As  Haymo  saith,  by  bishops, 
presbyters  are  understood  ;  for  many  bishops  did  not  preside 
in  one  city ;  neither  could  the  apostle  descend  from  bishops 
to  deacons,  passing  by  the  presbyters,  except  under  the  name 

X )  Treatise  on  the  Church,  vol.  ii.  5)  Def.  of  the  Min.  of  the  Ref.  Ch. 

P*  376\  in  Bernard's  Usher,  as  above. 

2)  Vind.  of  the  Episc.  or  Apost.  6)  Determinationes  Qujest.  42  in 
Succ.  p.  81.  Lond.  1839.  Comm.  on  Col.  vol.  i.  p.  53. 

3)  Judgment  of  the  archbishop  of  7)    Lib.    4.    dist.    24,  in    Jame- 
Armagh.  pp.  130  - 134.  son's  Sum  of  the  Episc.  Cont.  p.  239. 

4)  Wks.  on  Episc.  vol.  ii.  p.  173.  S)  Jameson's  Sum,  pp.  240,  241. 

52 


410  TESTIMONY    OF    THE    SCHOOLMEN  [BOOK   II. 

of  bishops  he  understood  presbyters.  Hence  it  is  usually 
said  that,  in  the  primitive  church,  bishops  were  not  distin- 
guished from  priests  or  presbyters.'  '  And  on  1  Tim.  3,  some, 
(saith  he,)  affirm,  probably,  that  here,  under  the  name  of 
bishop,  priest  or  presbyter  is  understood  ;  for  the  discourse  of 
deacons  is  presently  subjoined.'  Amalarius,  archbishop  of 
Treves,  A.  D.  810, 1  exactly  copies  after  Hilary  and  Jerome, 
and  clearly  enough  intimates  that  the  ordination  of  presby- 
ters and  bishops  were  originally  the  same,  and  adopts  the 
words  of  Jerome,  in  his  epistle  to  Evagrius.  He  is  most 
express,  that  as  the  church  increased,  so  she  multiplied  in 
ecclesiastical  offices  ;  and  this  he  borrows  from  Hilary,  whom 
he  reckoned  to  have  been  Ambrose,  on  the  epistles  to  Tim- 
othy. In  a  word,  when  he  comes  to  explain  by  what  custom 
bishops  came  to  be  appointed,  he  adopts  the  words  of  Jerome 
on  the  epistle  to  Titus.  The  council  of  Aix  La  Chapelle, 
about  A.  D.  816, 2  owns  the  original  identity  of  bishops  and 
presbyters,  and  expressly  declares,  that  the  ordination  of  the 
clergy  was  reserved  to  the  high  priest,  only  for  the  mainten- 
ance of  his  dignity.  Now  if  we  shall  look  back  to  the  year 
619,  we  shall  find  the  second  council  of  Seville,  in  Spain, 
declaring  themselves  in  these  words,  '  Albeit  there  are  very 
many  dispensations  of  the  mysteries  common  to  the  presby- 
ters and  bishops ;  yet,  let  them,  (the  presbyters,)  know,  that 
there  are  some  things  forbidden  them  by  the  old  law,  and 
others  by  modern  and  ecclesiastical  rules,  such  as  the  ordi- 
nation of  presbyters,  &c.  This  is  the  reading  of  the  canon, 
according  to  Caranza ;  but  it  is  otherwise  rendered  by 
others,  namely,  '  Although  there  are  many  functions  of  the 
ministry  common  to  the  presbyters,  with  the  bishops  ;  yet, 
by  the  modern  ecclesiastical  rules,  there  are  some  functions 
denied  to  them,  such  as  the  consecration  of  presbyters,  dea- 
cons, and  virgins.'  Let  us  ascend  yet  a  little  higher,  to  the 
year  600,  and  we  shall  have  the  bishop  of  Seville  agreeing 
with  the  council  held  in  that  place,  while  he  asserts,  that,  to 
these,  (presbyters,)  as  well  as  to  the  bishops,  is  committed 
the  dispensation  of  the  mysteries  of  God  ;  they  are  set  over 
the  churches  of  Christ,  and  in  the  mingling  the  body  and 
blood  of  Christ,  they  are  alike  with  the  bishops,  and  in  the 
office  of  preaching  to  the  people ;  only,  for  the  greater  honor 
of  the  bishop,  and  preventing  schisms,  the  power  of  ordina- 
tion was  restricted  to  him.' 

Rabanus    Maurus,    bishop   of  Mentz,  who  flourished  in 

1)    Apol.  p.  81;   Ayton,  pp.  572,  2)   Caranz.  Sum.  Concil.  Hispal. 

573.  can.  7.  p.  260 ;  in  Ayton,  549. 


CHAP.  V.]         IN  FAVOR  OF  PRESBYTERY.  411 

A.  D.  847,  says,1  '  With  the  ancients,  bishops  and  presbyters 
were  the  same,  because  the  first  was  a  name  of  honor,  and 
the  latter  of  age  or  experience.  These  words,  as  is  observed 
by  the  judicious  Blondel,  are  borrowed  from  Isodore,  bishop 
ol  Seville  ;  and  he  gives  some  other  passages  from  him  to  the 
same  purpose,  which,  as  he  observes,  are  partly  borrowed 
from  Hilary.'  Eutychius,  patriarch  of  Alexandria,  about  930, 
says,  '  The  evangelist  Mark  appointed  twelve  presbyters  to 
remain  with  the  patriarch,  so  that,  when  that  office  should 
become  vacant,  they  might  choose  one  of  the  twelve  presby- 
ters, upon  whom  the  eleven  should  lay  their  hands  and  bless 
him,  and  create  him  a  patriarch.  Nor  did  this  institution 
cease  down  even  to  the  time  of  Alexander,  patriarch  of  Alex- 
andria. He  decreed  that,  upon  the  death  of  the  patriarch,  the 
bishops  should  assemble  and  appoint  a  patriarch.'  Bernaldus 
Constantiensis,  about  10SS,  the  most  zealous  defender  of 
Gregory  VII,  after  citing  Jerome,  in  his  De  Presbyterorum 
Officio.  Tract,  continues,  '  Inasmuch,  therefore,  as  bishops 
and  presbyters  were  anciently  the  same,  they  had,  without 
doubt,  the  same  power  to  loose  and  to  bind,  and  other  things 
which  are  now  the  prerogative  of  the  bishop.'  Even  pope 
Urban  11,1091,  says,  'We  regard  deacons  and  presbyters  as 
belonging  to  the  sacred  order.  If,  indeed,  these  are  the  only 
orders  which  the  primitive  church  is  understood  to  have  had, 
for  these  we  have  apostolic  authority.'  Cone.  Benevent.  can. 
1.  Gratian  advances  similar  views,  in  Dist.  lx.  Gratianwas 
the  father  of  the  canonists,  another  squadron  of  the  papal  and 
prelatical  champions,  whose  great  effort  it  has  been  to  har- 
monize and  reconcile  the  various  and  contradictory  papal 
canons  and  decrees.  This  work  was  first  accomplished  by 
Gratian.  This  author  says,2  '  We  call  the  sacred  orders  the 
diaconate  and  presbyterate ;  these  only  the  primitive  church 
is  said  to  have  had.' 

Joannes  Seneca,  in  his  gloss  on  the  canon  law,  speaks  to 
the  same  effect.3  '  They  say,  indeed,  that,  in  the  first  primi- 
tive church,  the  office  of  bishops  and  priests,  and  their  names, 
were  common;  but  in  the  second  primitive  church,  both 
names  and  offices  began  to  be  distinguished.'  From  these 
two  noted  writers  among  the  Romans,  it  is  easy  to  perceive, 
that  there  was  a  time  when  there  was  a  first  primitive  church, 
in  which  the  presbyters  acted  in  common,  and  had  the  sole 
power  of  ecclesiastical  jurisdiction,  and  that  both  the  office 

1)  Blondel,  Apol.  p.  81  ;  Ayton's  2)  See  in  Ayton,  p.  502,  and  dist. 

Constit.  of  Ch.  p.  573.  95.  c.  5.  93.  c.  21.  and  21.  c.  1. 

3)  Dist.  95.  c.  in  ibid. 


412  TESTIMONY    OF    THE    SCHOOLMEN  [BOOK  II. 

and  names  of  bishops  and  presbyters  were  common.'  Atto, 
bishop  of  Verceil,  flourished  A.  D.  950.  In  his  treatise  on 
the  judgments  of  bishops,1  he  thinks  the  church  founded  on 
the  confession  of  the  apostolic  faith  ;  and  that  she  subsists  by 
the  faith  and  love  of  Jesus,  by  receiving  the  sacraments,  and 
by  observing  the  precepts  of  our  Saviour.'  '  He  conceives  that 
the  order  of  bishops  and  that  of  presbyters,  were  the  same  in 
the  time  of  the  apostle  Paul ;  that  the  people  have  right  to  a 
share  in  the  election  of  bishops  ;  that  the  laity  can  judge  of 
the  behavior  of  bishops  ;  and  that  spiritual  guides  are  not  to 
be  elected  because  of  noble  blood,  but  for  their  faith  and 
charity.' 

The  canon  law  itself  contains  the  following  decree,  '  Bish- 
'ops  ought  to  know  that  they  are  presbyters,  not  lords,  neither 
ought  they  to  lord  it  over  the  clergy.  The  bishop,  when 
sitting,  ought  not  to  permit  presbyters  to  stand.  Bishops 
ought  to  know  that  they  are  greater  than  presbyters,  rather 
by  custom  than  by  any  dispensation.'2  Lombard,  the  great 
father  of  the  schoolmen,  A.  D.  1164,  says,3  '  Having  briefly 
spoken  to  the  seven  degrees  of  the  church,  we  have  insinua- 
ted what  should  belong  to  every  one ;  and  all  of  them  are 
spiritual  and  sacred  ;  notwithstanding  the  canons  determine, 
that  only  two  orders  ought  to  be  termed  sacred  by  way  of 
eminency,  namely,  that  of  the  diaconate,  and  that  of  the  pres- 
byterate,  because  we  read  that  the  primitive  church  had  only 
these  two  ;  and  of  these  alone  wTe  have  the  command  of  the 
apostle  ;  for  the  apostles  did  ordain  bishops  and  presbyters  in 
every  city.' 
""-  Duns  Scotus,  who  flourished  A.  D.  1300,  and  commented 
on  Lombard,  authenticated,  as  we  have  seen,  his  views. 
Armachanus,  or  properly  Richard  Fitz  Ralph.4  who  was 
archbishop  of  Armagh,  in  1347,  says,5  '  a  bishop,  in  such 
things,  hath  no  more  in  respect  of  his  order,  than  every  single 
;  priest ;  although  the  church  hath  appointed  that  such  things 
I  should  be  executed  by  those  men  whom  we  call  bishops.' 
'  There  is  not  found,  in  the  evangelical  or  apostolical  scrip- 
ture, any  difference  between  bishops  and  simple  priests,  called 
presbyters.  lb.  lib.  xi.  ix.  Arm.  c.  5.'  In  another  work0  he 
gives  the  strongest  possible  testimony.     In  this  he  avers,  that 

1)  See  in  Blair's  Hist,  of  the  Wal-  4)  See  Stuart's  Hist,  of  Armagh, 
denses,  vol.  i.  pp.  15S,  101.  p.  185,  &c. 

2)  The  original  is  found  in  War-  5)  Div.  Right  of  the  Min.  part  ii- 
burton's  Wks.  vol.  vii.  p.  150.  p.  133. 

3)  Ayton,  577,  from  lib.  iv.  dist.  6)  De  Questionibus  Armenorum, 
24 ;  and  Jameson's  Cyp.  Isot.  p.  29.  c.  1-6,  in  Prynne's    English  Lordly 

Prelacy,  2,  325,  326. 


CHAP.  V.]         IN  FAVOR  OF  PRESBYTERY.  413 

these  states  and  degrees  of  patriarch,  archbishop,  bishop,  &c, 
were  invented  only  out  of  the  devotion  of  men,  not  instituted 
by  Christ  and  his  apostles.  That  no  prelate  of  the  church, 
how  great  soever,  hath  any  greater  degree  of  the  power  of 
order,  than  a  simple  priest.  In  the  fourth  chapter,  he  proves 
that  the  power  of  confirmation  and  imposition  of  hands,  that 
the  Holy  Ghost  maybe  given  thereby,  appertains  to  the  juris- 
diction of  the  presbytery,  which  he  manifesteth  by  Acts,  7  : 
14;  1  Tim.  4,  and  by  the  practice  of  the  primitive  church 
after  the  apostles'  time.  In  the  fourth  and  fifth  chapters,  he 
demonstrates  that  priests  are  called  bishops  by  the  apostle. 
Phil.  1 :  1 ;  1  Tim.  3  ;  Titus,  1 ;  and  Acts,  20 :  28 ;  and  that 
they  succeed  the  apostles  in  order.  In  the  sixth  chapter,  he 
proves  that  all  priests  and  bishops  are  equal  as  to  the  power 
of  order  ;  and  in  the  fourth  chapter,  he  punctually  determines 
that  there  is  no  distinction  found  in  the  evangelical  or  apos- 
tolical scriptures,  between  bishops  and  simple  priests,  called 
presbyters;  whence  it  follows,  that  in  all  of  them  there  is  one 
and  equal  power  by  reason  of  order ;  and  that,  for  aught  he 
can  find,  the  apostle  Paul  doth  not,  in  any  of  his  epistles, 
distinguish  between  the  order  of  presbyters  (that  is,  of  apos- 
tles,) and  bishops.  That  every  one  who  hath  the  cure  of 
others,  is  a  bishop.  Which  the  name  of  a  bishop  importeth 
and  manifesteth.  For  a  bishop  is  nothing  else  but  a  super- 
intendent, or  watchman  ;  from  whence  it  is  evident  that, 
besides  the  power  of  order,  he  hath  nothing  but  a  cure.' 

Gerson,  A.  D.  1392,  and  styled  'doctor  christianismus,' 
declares,1  '  Above  priesthood  there  is  no  superior  order  ;  no,  not 
the  function  of  a  bishop  or  archbishop.'  Aureolus  has  a  very 
notable  passage,2  '  Every  form,  inasmuch  as  it  is  in  act,  hath 
power  to  communicate  itself  in  the  same  kind ;  therefore, 
every  priest  hath  power  to  celebrate  orders.  Why,  then,  do 
they  not  celebrate  them  ?  Because  their  power  is  hindered 
by  the  decree  of  the  church.  Whereupon,  when  a  bishop  is 
made,  there  is  not  given  unto  him  any  new  power,  but,  the 
former  power  being  hindered,  is  set  at  liberty ;  as  a  man,  when 
the  act  of  reason  is  hindered,  and  the  impediment  is  removed, 
there  is  not  given  unto  him  a  new  soul.  From  all  these 
things,  it  appears  that  presbyters  have  an  intrinsical  power  to 
ordain  presbyters.'  '  Michael  Casenas,  the  head  of  the 
Minorites,  who  flourished  before  the  year  1399,  maintained,3 

1)  Div.  Right  of  the  Min.  part  ii.     See  the  whole  passage  given,  at  p.  140 
p-  133.  of  Div.  Right  of  the  Min.  part  2. 

2)  Lib.  iv.  q.  24,  act  2,  in  ibid.  3)  Ayton,  p.  577. 


414  THE    SCHOOLMEN. 

that  all  priests,  of  whatever  degree,  were  of  equal  power, 
authority,  and  jurisdiction,  by  the  institution  of  Christ.' 

Ocham,  a  great  schoolman,  says,1  '  that,  by  Christ's  insti- 
tution, all  priests,  of  whatsoever  degree,  are  of  equal  authority, 
power,  and  jurisdiction.  Catal.  Test.  Verit.  Richardus  de 
Media  Villa  in  4  Sent,  distinct.  24,  q.  2,  saith,  that  episco- 
pacy is  to  be  called,  not  an  order,  which  is  a  sacrament,  but 
rather  a  certain  dignity  of  an  order.  Concil.  Colon.  Euchirid. 
Christ.  Religion,  Paris  edit.  An.  1558.  p.  169  of  holy  orders, 
saith,  bishops  and  presbyters  were  the  same  order  in  the  prim- 
itive church,  as  all  the  epistles  of  Peter  and  Paul,  and  Jerome 
also,  and  almost  all  the  fathers,  witness.'  Antony  Beccadelli, 
surnamed  Panormitan,  from  his  native  country,  A.  D.  1400, 
says,2  '  formerly,  presbyters  governed  the  church  in  common, 
and  ordained  priests,  and  equally  conferred  all  the  sacra- 
ments.' 

We  might  here  repeat  the  testimonies  already  adduced,  in 
reference  to  continuance  and  powers  of  the  chorepiscopi.3 
Also,  all  the  testimonies  adduced  under  the  head  of  ordina- 
tion.4 Nicholas  Tudeschus,  archbishop  of  Panorma,  about 
A.  D.  1428,  says,  '  Formerly  presbyters  governed  the  church 
in  common,  and  ordained  the  clergy,  sacerdotes."1  Ed.  Lugd. 
1547,  fol.  112  b.  It  is  perhaps  still  more  remarkable,  that 
even  the  papal  canonist,  Jo.  Paul  Launcelot,  A.  D.  1570, 
introduces  the  passage  of  Jerome,  without  any  attempt  to 
refute  it. 

1)  Corbet's  Remains,  p.  110.  3)  See  B.  i.  ch.  x.  §  1,  and  Div. 

2)  Lib.  i.  decret.  de  consult,  c.  4,     Right  of  Min.  pp.  135-138. 

in  Div.  Right  of  Min.  p.  129;  and  again  4)  See  B.  i.  ch.  x.  and    ibid,  pp. 

at  pp.  139, 140,  more  fully.  139  - 142. 


CHAPTER   VI. 


THE  TESTIMONY  OF  THE  ROMISH,  GREEK.  AND  SYRIAN 
CHURCHES,  IN  FAVOR  OF  THE  CLAIMS  OF  PRESBYTERY. 


It  is  our  purpose,  at  this  time,  only  to  refer  to  those  ehurches 
which  have  been  supposed  to  be  most  hierarchical,  and 
opposed  to  the  system  of  presbytery,  reserving  the  testimony 
of  others,  for  our  chapter  on  the  antiquity  of  presbyterianism. 
Fas  est  ab  hoste  doceri,  and  the  testimony  of  those  who  prac- 
tically adopt  the  system  of  prelacy,  to  the  original  identity  of 
the  orders  of  bishops  and  presbyters,  must  be  allowed  to  have 
great  weight  with  all  who  wish  to  preserve  the  pure  order  and 
doctrine  of  the  apostles. 

We  will  first  inquire,  therefore,  what  is  the  testimony 
given  on  this  subject,  by  the  Romish  church.  There  are 
three  opinions  prevalent  in  this  church.  Some  think  that  the 
episcopate  is  a  distinct  order  from  the  presbyterate.  Some 
believe  that  both  these  orders  are  one  genetically,  but  two 
specifically,  or  that  they  constitute  but  one  order  and  two 
degrees.  But  the  prevailing  theory  is  that  of  those  who 
believe  that  the  episcopate  is  not  a  distinct  order,  but  the 
extension  of  the  order  of  the  presbyterate,  by  a  greater  lati- 
tude of  jurisdiction.1  '  To  this  class  belong  the  master  of  the 
sentences,  Bonaventura,  Thomas  Aquinas,  Pope  Cornelius, 
Gregory  the  Great,  Alcuin,  &c.  The  council  of  Trent  is 
with  this  class  of  divines,  as  we  may  gather  from  the  second 
canon  of  the  twenty-third  session,  which  makes  the  priest- 
hood the  principal  order,  and  the  episcopate  only  a  branch  of 
it.  The  catechism,  too,  says,  respecting  orders,  that  its  high- 
est degree  is  the  priesthood.' 

This,  indeed,  must  be  the  case,  for  as  these  were  the  senti- 
ments of  so  many  fathers,  of  the  great  body  of  the  schoolmen, 
and  of  the  canonists,  and  as  these  constitute  the  exponents  of 

1)  Elliott  on   Roman,  i.  pp.  451,  452,  457,  458. 


416  TESTIMONY    OF    THE    ROMISH    CHURCH.  [BOOK  II. 

Romish  doctrines,  the  Romish  church  must  be  regarded  as 
holding  that  there  is  but  one  general  order  of  the  priesthood, 
and  different  degrees  of  dignity  and  power.  '  Popery  and 
prelacy,' says  Mr.  Sinclair,1  'so  far  from  being  necessarily 
connected  with  one  another,  are  diametrically  opposed.  No 
sooner  was  the  supremacy  of  the  pope  acknowledged,  than 
encroachments  were  made  on  episcopal  jurisdiction.  Vari- 
ous districts  and  entire  corporations  of  ecclesiastics  were 
withdrawn  from  diocesan  control.  More  power  was  given, 
in  many  instances,  to  mere  priests  and  deacons,  (under  the 
name  of  cardinals  and  legates,)  than  to  any  bishop  but  the 
Roman  pontiff.  Inferior  church  officers,  invested  with  the 
uncanonical  authority,  were  frequently  empowered  to  suspend, 
and  even  to  deprive,  their  superiors.  The  pope,  it  was  affirm- 
ed, might  grant  commissions  authorizing  the  lower  ranks  of 
the  clergy  to  confer  upon  others  the  order  or  degree  held  by 
themselves:  so  that  a  priest  was  licensed  to  ordain  priests, 
and  a  deacon  to  ordain  deacons  ;  on  which  commissions  we 
may  make  this  passing  remark,  that  they  form  the  earliest  and 
only  precedent,  before  the  days  of  protestantism,  for  presby- 
terian  or  diaconal  ordination.' 

If,  therefore,  we  look  to  the  practice  of  the  Romish  church, 
we  must  certainly  conclude  that  the  order  of  the  episcopate 
is  not  regarded  as  distinct,  or  as  of  divine  right.2  In  addition 
to  what  has  been  stated,  it  is  also  a  fact,  that  during  the 
greater  part  of  the  last  century,  Romish  bishops  were  conse- 
crated in  England  and  Ireland,  by  a  single  bishop,  assisted 
by  two  priests.  It  seems,  also,  that  the  Roman  pontiffs  had 
no  difficulty  in  giving  permission  to  such  ordinations  in  for- 
eign missions.3  And  yet,  this  is  contrary  to  the  canons  of 
the  universal  church,  which  would  conclude  such  ordinations 
invalid.4  They  must,  therefore,  depend  entirely  on  the 
dispensing  power  of  the  pope,  and  this  implies  that  the  laws 
dispensed  with  depend  upon  ecclesiastical  custom,  which  the 
pope  may  set  aside,  and  not  upon  divine  institution,  which 
even  the  pope,  in  theory,  is  not  believed  to  be  able  to  alter  or 
subvert,  since,  as  Bellarmine  teaches,  injure  divino  Papa  non 
potest  dispensare.6 

1)  Vind.  of  Episc.  or  Ap.   Succ.  pp.  121  and  123,  and   Palmer's  Episc. 
pp.    SO,    81.      See    also    Broughton's  Vind.  against  Dr.  Wiseman,  p.  249. 
Eccl.  Diet.  vol.  i.  p.   160.     Oxd.  Tr.  4)  Palmer,  ibid.  p.  248,  &c.  Nat. 
vol.  iii.  p.  138,  where  is  quoted  arch-  Alex.    Corpus  Juris.    Canonici.   dist. 
bishop    Braimhall.     Laud,  on  the  Lit.  lxiv.  p.  194,  Decret.  part  i. 

and  Episc. p.  347.  6)  Lib.ii.de  Concil.c.  18,  and  De 

2)  See  Burnet's  Vind.  of  the  Ch.     Matrim.  c.  ii,  and  see  Aureolus  to  the 
of  Scotland,  pp.  172,  173.  same  effect,  in  Div.  Right  of  Min.p.142. 

3  Faber   on    Transubstantiation, 


CHAP.  VI.]  IN    FAVOR    OF    PRESBYTERY.  II? 

Neither  is  the  council  of  Trent  to  be  regarded  as  contrai 

dieting  this  opinion.  '  The  divines  in  the  council  of  Trent 
who  were  in  Ihe  pope's  interest,  argued  against  the  position, 
that  bishops  had  any  other  authority  whatever,  than  that 
derived  from  the  pope,  by  using  'those  same  arguments 
against  ihe  divine  right  of  episcopacy,  which  from  them,  and 
the  popish  canonists  and  schoolmen,  have  been  licked  up  by 
presbyterians  and  others.'1  No  subject  occasioned  more 
fierce  and  protracted  debates  in  the  council  of  Trent,  than 
that  of  the  divine  right  of  the  order  of  bishops,  as  may  be 
fully  seen  in  the  histories  of  that  body.2  That  the  final 
decree,  which  was  a  compromise  between  the  opposing 
parties,  favors  the  opinion  that  the  first  and  second  orders  of 
the  ministry,  that  is,  bishops  and  presbyters,  are  identical  in 
order,  is  allowed  even  by  the  semi-popish  Mr.  Palmer,  who 
gives  as  his  reason,  that3  'it  does  not  reckon  the  episcopate  as 
a  distinct  order  from  the  priesthood,  though  it  denounces 
anathema  against  those  who  deny  that  there  is  a  hierarchy, 
divinely  instituted,  consisting  of  bishops,  presbyters,  and  min- 
isters.' In  the  catechism,  published  by  authority  of  this 
council  and  pope  Pius  V,  and  embodying  their  views, 
this  doctrine  is  most  unequivocally  advanced.  'These,'  it 
says,4  after  enumerating  the  priestly  functions,  'these  are  the 
proper  and  special  functions  of  the  priestly  order ;  which  order, 
though  it  be  but  one,  yet  it  has  different  degrees  of  digniiv 
and  power.  The  first  is  of  those  who  are  simply  called 
priests,  whose  functions  have  hitherto  been  declared.  Tin; 
second  is  of  bishops,  who  are  placed  over  their  several  bish- 
opries, to  govern,  not  only  the  other  ministers  of  the  church, 
but  the  faithful  people,  also;  and,  with  the  utmost  vigilance 
and  care,  to  take  regard  of  their  salvation.'  Here,  we  are 
expressly  taught,  that  there  is  but  one  order  of  the  ministry, 
while  the  degree  of  bishops  is  proved  only  by  those  passages 
which  are  now  universally  allowed  to  refer  only  to  presby- 
ters. The  catechism,  then  goes  on  to  enumerate  archbishops 
and  patriarchs,  as  the  third  and  fourth  degrees  of  this  order; 
and  since  it  admitted,  with  equal  universality,  that  these  are, 
in  order,  one  and  the  same  with  bishops,  bishops  must  also 
be,  in  order,  one  and  the  same  with  presbyters.     And  hence, 

1)  Leslie's  Letter  on  Episcop.  in  256.     Cramp's  Text  Book  of  Popery, 
Scholar  Armed,  vol  i.  p.  75.  p.  297,  and  Notes,  Eng.  ed. 

2)  Paolo's  Hist,  of  the  Council  of  3)  Treatise  on  the  Ch.  vol.  ii.  p. 
Trent,    pp.  160.  217,  316,   552,    557, 

:r,  |    590  -  598,   677,  6S7.     Mendham's  1 )   Sect,  xlviii.p.  308,  Lon.l 

Hist,  of  Council  of  Trent,  pp.  249  - 

53 


418  TESTIMONY    OF    THE    ROMISH    CHURCH.  [BOOK  II. 

in  the  note  inserted  in  the  new  body  of  the  canon  law,1  it  is 
said,  '  there  has  been  always  a  difference,  and  still  is,  between 
bishops  and  presbyters,  in  respect  of  government,  preemin- 
ence, and  sacraments,  but  the  name  and  title  is  common  to 
both.' 

This  opinion,  even  though  infallibly  determined,  we  do 
not  affirm  to  be  universally  received,  in  the  Romish  church, 
but  only,  that  it  is  the  established  and  general  doctrine,  and 
that  of  many  of  her  ablest  divines.  Cassander  holds  this 
language, 2  '  if  episcopacy  be  an  order,  divines  and  canonists 
do  not  agree.     But  all  agree  that,  in  the  apostles'  age, 

THERE   WAS  NO  DIFFERENCE   BETWEEN  BISHOP  AND  PRESBYTER, 

but  afterwards,  for  order's  sake,  and  that  schism  might  be 
shunned,  the  bishop  was  set  over  the  presbyter,  to  whom, 
alone,  the  power  of  ordination  was  committed.  It  is  certain, 
also,  that  the  presbyterate  and  diaconate,  are  the  only  sacred 
orders,  which  we  read  to  have  been  in  the  primitive  church, 
which  pope  Urban  witnesseth,  and  Chrysostom  and  Ambrose 
observed.'  Estius,  in  his  commentary  on  Lombard's  distinc- 
tions, allows,  also,  that  the  divine  right  of  episcopacy  cannot 
be  clearly  proved  from  scripture.3  Cardinal  Cajetan,  on 
Acts  20 :  28,  says,4  that '  the  apostle  calls  the  same  persons 
bishops,  who  had  been  named  presbyters,  verse  17th.  For,' 
saith  the  cardinal,  '  bishop  is  the  name  of  an  office ;  which 
office,  the  apostle  subjoins  in  these  words,  to  rule  the  flock  of 
God.'  Erasmus,  on  1  Tim.  4 :  14,  says,5  that,  '  anciently, 
there  was  no  difference  between  presbyter  or  priest,  and 
bishop,  as  Jerome  witnesses.'  '  Among  all  christians,'  says 
Baxter,6 'the  papists  are  the  highest  prelatists;  and  among 
all  papists  the  Jesuits  ;  and  among  all  the  Jesuits  Petavius, 
who  hath  written  against  Salmasius,  &c,  on  this  subject.' 
Petavius,  Dissert.  Ecclesiast.  de  Episcop.  dignit  jurisd.  p.  22, 
eoncludeth  his  first  chapter,  in  which  he  had  cited  the  chief- 
est  of  the  fathers.  '  Hitherto,  it  is  proved  by  the  authority  of 
the  ancients,  that  in  the  first  times,  not  only  the  names  but 
the  orders  of  presbyters  and  bishops  did  concur  into  the  same 
persons.'  Patavius,  also,  fully  proves,  that  the  ancient  bishop 
was  a  pastor  of  one  communion.7     Page  24th.     '  I  think  that 

1)  Dr.   Reynolds's  Letter  to    Sir  5)  Ibid,  p.  242. 

Fr.    Knolly's,  in  Boyse's  Anet.    Chr.  6)  Baxter  on  Episcop.  part  ii.  pp. 

p.  17.  13,  14. 

2)  Consult  art.   14,  in   Jameson's  7)  Baxter,  ibid,  pp  14,  15,  where 
Cyp.  Isot.  p.  295,  Ayton,  p.577.  will  be   found   lengthened  quotations 

3)  Lib.  iv.  dist.  xxiv.  §  25.  from  him. 

4)  Jameson's  Sum  of  Episc.Contr, 
241. 


CHAP.  VI.]  TESTIMONY    OF    THE    GREEK    CHURCH.  419 

either  all  or  most  of  the  presbyters  were  so  ordained,  as  that 
they  obtained  both  the  degree  of  bishop  and  of  presbyter.' 
Where  he  proceedeth  to  show,  that  he  thinks  this  was  done  that 
there  might  be  a  store  of  bishops  prepared  for  all  countries, 
page  25,  He  holds  that  there  were  many  bishops  in  one 
church,  as  in  that  of  Ephesus,  which  he  taketh  for  a  partic- 
ular church,  and  not  a  province.' 

The  testimony  thus  abundantly  offered  by  the  Romish 
church,  in  favor  of  presbytery,  may  also  be  found  in  the 
Greek  church.  To  this  church  belong  all  those  fathers  whose 
voice  has  already  been  heard,  connected  with  that  portion  of 
the  world  falling  within  the  limits  of  the  Greek  church.  In 
addition  to  the  weight  of  their  testimony,  we  have  a  powerful 
repudiation  of  prelatical  claims,  and  attestation  to  the  original 
powers  and  functions  of  presbyters,  in  the  existing  customs  of 
this  church.  According  to  the  Romish  and  the  Anglican 
hierarchy,  there  is  no  function  more  preeminently  episcopal, 
or  appropriated  to  the  bishop,  than  that  of  confirmation,  so 
that  it  would  be  as  outrageous,  and  as  worthy  of  being 
accursed,  to  impute  to  presbyters  this  function,  as  that  of 
ordination  itself.1  Now  in  the  Greek  church,  presbyters  are 
allowed  to  confirm ;  not  only  so,  but,  what  is  still  more  awful, 
even  to  consecrate  the  chrism  ;  and,  what  crowns  the  mystery 
of  this  iniquity,  this  practice  is  sustained  by  an  appeal  to  the 
apostolical  constitutions !  !2  A  proof  positive,  that,  in  the  judg- 
ment of  this  church,  the  whole  arrangement  of  the  functions 
of  these  two  orders  depends  upon  no  original  difference,  but 
altogether  upon  ecclesiastical  law. 

To  this  we  may  add  the  testimony  of  Platon,  archbishop 
of  Moscow,  who,  in  his  Summary  of  Christian  Divinity, 
teaches,  that  '  the  governors  of  the  churches  consist  of  pastors 
and  spiritual  teachers,  according  to  the  doctrine  of  Paul,  Eph. 
4 :  11, 12.  Of  pastors  some  are  greater,  such  as  bishops  ;  and 
others  are  lesser,  such  as  presbyters  or  ministers.'  Both, 
however,  are  pastors,  who  are  governors  of  the  churches.3 
Nilus,  also,  archbishop  of  the  Greek  church,  says,4  '  nay, 
every  priest  is,  by  this  reason,  a  successor  of  the  apostles,  of 
whom,  by  tradition,  they  have  received  the  priesthood,'  &c. 
To  these  we  may  add,  that  '  Zaga  Zabo,  an  Ethiopic  bishop, 
names,  says  Dr.  Willet,5  priests  and  deacons  and  subdea- 

1)  Potter  on  Ch.  Govt.     Cramp's  3)  Pinkerton's      Transl.     Edinb. 
Text  Book  of  Popery,  p.  124,  Eng.  ed.  1814,  p.  167,  §  28. 

2)  Riddle's   Chr.  Antiq.    p.  498,  4)  Lib.  ii.  de  primat.  in  Willet, 
Apost.  Const.  1.  iii.  c.  16,  17,  and   iv.  Syn.  p.  168 

c  43.  5)   Synopsis  Papismi.  Fol.  p.  268, 

from  Damianus  de  Morib.  Ethiop. 


420     THE  STRONG  TESTIMONY  OF  THE  SYRIAN    [BOOK  II. 

cons,  and  addeth  no  more,  in  his  confession  of  the  Elhiopic 
faith. 

Another  important  branch  of  the  church  of  Christ  is  the 
Syrian,  visited  by  Dr.  Buchanan,  and  which  may  fairly  lay 
claim  to  be  one  of  the  most  ancient  and  interesting  of  all 
existing  christian  communities.  '  Some  circumstances,11  says 
Dr.  Kerr,  in  his  report  on  these  churches,  'may  be  collected 
from  undoubted  authority,  by  which  it  may  be  inferred,  that 
the  St.  Thome  christians  have  been  for  nearly  fifteen  centu- 
ries established  in  India.  For  we  find  in  ecclesiastical  history, 
that  at  the  first  council  of  Nice,  in  the  year  325,  a  bishop  from 
India  was  amongst  the  number  composing  that  memorable 
synod.' 

That,  in  their  present  form,  the  Syrian  christians  are  charge- 
able with  much  corruption,  and  numerous  errors,  among 
which  we  class  their  hierarchical  forms,  is  lamented  by  bishop 
Wilson.2  Their  existing'  testimony,  therefore,  is  of  no  force 
against  us,  since  it  can  be  made  clear,  that,  originally,  that  is, 
in  the  second  century,  they  had  no  knowledge  of  three  orders 
of  the  ministry,  or  of  any  others  besides  those  of  bishops  and 
deacons.  For,  the  oldest  Syriac  version  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment, commonly  called  the  Peshito,  probably  made  early  in 
the  second  century,  and  bearing  a  very  high  character  for 
faithfulness,  and  accuracy,  uniformly  renders  the  word  emoxonog, 
as  it  occurs  in  Acts  20 :  17,  28 ;  in  1  Peter  5:1,2,'  elder,' 
and  the  word  emaxortov,  in  1  Tim.  3 :  1,  &c,  the  '  office  of  an 
elder.'  On  this  fact,  the  learned  John  David  Michaelis,  in  his 
'  Introduction  to  the  New  Testament,'  thus  remarks :  '  we 
know  that  the  distinction  between  bishops  and  elders  was 
introduced  into  the  christian  church  in  a  very  early  age ;  yet 
the  distinction  was  unknown  to  the  Syrian  translator.'  In 
reference  to  this  statement,  Dr.  Herbert  Marsh,  afterwards 
bishop  of  Peterborough,  and  a  zealous  high-churchman,  in 
his  '  Notes '  on  Michaelis's  work,  makes  the  following  observa- 
tion :  '  this  proves  that  the  Syriac  translator  understood  his 
original ;  and  that  he  made  a  proper  distinction  between  the 
language  of  the  primitive  and  the  hierarchical  church.'  This 
fact  will  appear  to  be  incontrovertibly  strong,  when  it  is 
borne  in  mind,  that  this  version  had  adopted  the  term, 
smaxoTiog,  or  bishop  of  the  Greeks,  and  that  the  word  elder, 

1)  Bishop  Burgess's  Tracts  on  the  2)  See  his  Acct.  of  them   in  Bu- 

Anct.   Brit.  Ch.  p.  320.     See  also  Dr.  chanan's  Researches,  as  Pub.  by  Soc. 

Wilson's  Prim.  Govt,  of  the  Ch.  p.  197,  for  Prom.  Pop.   Instruct.  Lond.   1S40, 

who  thinks  the  gospel  was  carried  to  p.  84. 
India  in  the  fourth  centurv. 


CHAP.  VI.]  CHURCH    IN    FAVOR    OF    PRESBYTERY. 


421 


that  is,  presbyter,  was  employed,  instead  of  that  term,  not 
from  any  necessity,  but  from  the  two  being  in  the  mind  of 
the  translator  identical.1 

On  this  subject,  Dr.  Buchanan  also  remarks:2  '  it  is  proper 
to  state,  for  the  satisfaction  of  those  who  may  differ  in  opinion 
with  the  venerable  bishop,  that,  in  the  Syriac  translation  of 
the  New  Testament,  there  is  no  proper  word  for  bishop, 
other  than  kasheesha.  The  word  kasheesha  and  shnmshana 
or  properly  meshitmshana,  are  the  two  terms  for  the  two 
orders  of  bishop  and  deacon,  in  the  third  chapter  of  1st  Tim- 
othy. The  terms  episcopos  and  methropolita  have  been 
introduced  into  the  Syrian  church  from  the  Greek.  The 
bishop  seemed  to  be  more  surprised  at  the  striking  out  of 
the  sacred  order  of  deacon,  than  at  not  finding  the  order 
of  a  superintending  priest  or  bishop.  The  same  thing  is 
true  respecting  other  oriental  churches,  as  for  instance  the 
Nestorians,  who  also  borrow  from  the  Greeks  the  term  epis- 
copos.3 This  is  the  more  remarkable,  when  we  remember, 
that  the  Syriac  language  was  spoken  by  our  Lord  himself, 
and  extensively  used  in  his  days,  throughout  Palestine.  So 
that  if  any  prelatic  office  had  then  existed,  or  as  late  as  the 
date  of  the  Syriac  version,  some  Syriac  title  for  it  would  have 
been  undoubtedly  found. 

Up  to  the  year  1599,  these  Syrian  christians  had  remained 
independent  of  Rome,  even  after  the  arrival  of  the  Portuguese 
among  them.  At  this  time,  Menezes,  archbishop  of  Goa, 
succeeded  in  enforcing  an  apparent  submission  to  the  church 
of  Rome.  For  this  purpose,  a  synod  was  called,  at  Diamper, 
in  June  1599,  when  one  hundred  and  fifty  of  the  Syrian 
clergy  appeared,  the  acts  and  decrees  of  which  were  published 
at  Conimbra,  in  1606.4  In  his  opening  speech,  the  arch- 
bishop addresses  only  '  the  venerable  priests  and  the  repre- 
sentatives and  procurators  of  the  people,'5  that  is,  the  lay 
elders,  and  the  deacons.  So,  also,  the  second  decree  addresses 
itself  only  to  '  priests,  deacons,  and  sub-deacons.'6  While 
among  the  books  condemned  by  the  synod,7  is  '  also  the  book 
of  orders ;'  on  the  ground  that  it  says,  that '  the  form  and  not  the 

1)  See  Dr.   Bennet's  Theology  of  embracing  an  entire   and  lengthened 
the  Early  Christ,  p.  240.  Confession  of  Faith   and   Discipline, 

2)  Researches,  as    above,  p.  80,  and  may  be  seen  in   Hough's  Hist,  of 
note.  Christ,  in  India,  vol.  ii.  Appendix,  pp. 

3)  Dr.  Grant's  Nestorians,  p.  105,  511-688. 

and  Dr.  Perkins's  Residence  in  Persia,  5)  Ibid,  p.  515. 

p.   19.  6)  P.  525. 

4)  They  form  quite  a  volume —  7)  Sess.  iii.  Dec.  xv.  p.  547. 


422      THE  STRONG  TESTIMONY  OF  THE  SYRIAN    [BOOK  II. 

matter  is  necessary  to  orders;  and  the  forms  therein  are  likewise 
erroneous ;  that  there  are  only  two  orders,  the  diaconate 
and  priesthood.'  From  this  it  is  manifest,  that,  up  to  1599, 
the  only  orders  known  among  these  ancient  christians  were 
those  of  presbyters  and  deacons,  with  the  representatives  of  the 
people.  These  lay  elders,  or  representatives  of  the  people, 
are  repeatedly  mentioned,  and  their  names  given,  by  Buchan- 
an.1 For,  after  the  expulsion  of  the  Portuguese,  these 
churches  shook  off  the  yoke  of  Rome,  though  they  could  not 
free  themselves  from  many  erroneous  impressions  and  views. 
The  conduct  of  Dr.  Buchanan,  and  of  his  episcopal  editors, 
ever  since,  in  reference  to  this  testimony,  is  worthy  of  most 
severe  condemnation.  In  three  editions  of  his  Researches, 
which  we  have  before  us,  the  Syrian  churches  are  repre- 
sented as  having2  'maintained  the  order  and  discipline  of  a 
regular  church  under  episcopal  jurisdiction;  and  that,  for 
thirteen  hundred  years  past,  they  had  enjoyed  a  succession 
of  bishops,  appointed  by  the  patriarch  of  Antioch.'  And  as 
having  been  accused  at  the  synod  of  Diamper,  of '  having  no 
other  orders  or  names  of  dignity,  in  the  church,  than  bishop, 
priest,  and  deacon?  Such  was  the  original  form  in  which  Dr. 
Buchanan's  account  of  these  churches  was  published.  In  a 
subsequent  edition,  however,  he  acknowledged  that  he  had 
actually  interpolated  the  record,  and  that  on  referring  to  the 
decrees  of  the  synod  he  had  found  them  accused  of  having 
only  two  orders,  'the  diaconate  and  the  priesthood.'3  And 
yet,  notwithstanding  the  unquestionable  error  of  the  original 
statement,  and  Dr.  Buchanan's  subsequent  retraction,  prela- 
tists  are  still  found  ready  to  propagate  this  erroneous  state- 
ment, for  the  advancement  of  their  cause,  and  that  too,  under 
cover  of  societies  for  '  the  promotion  of  popular  instruction: '4 
As  to  the  assertion,  that  the  Syrian  churches5  were  ruled 
by  'bishops'  and  'prelates,'  made  on  the  ground  of  their 
having  had  a  metropolitan,  we  may  observe  that  they  had  not 
bishops  or  prelates,  but  only  one;  speaking  of  whose  title, 
Buchanan   acknowledges,  that  he   Avas    '  not  propely  called 

1)  See  Researches,  p.  25,  as  above,  readers,  against  the  Ch.  of  Scotland, 
and  pp.  58,  61,  Washbourne's  ed.  1840,  which  is,  we  are  gravely  informed  by 
Lond.  See  also  Pearson's  Life  of  Bu-  this  enlightened  society,  '  the  only  na- 
chanan,  in  which  there  is  much  new  tional  church  in  the  world  in  which 
matter.  the  scriptures  are  not  read.'!!!   p.  78. 

2)  Ed.  as  above,  p.  74.  We  hope  the  editors   of  the  works  of 

3)  Lond.  1819,  see  Plea  for  Pres-  this  Society  will  receive  its  intended 
bytery,  p.  346.  benefits  before  again  attempting  their 

4)  The  edition  issued  by  this  So-  editorial  functions,  and  be  put  to 
ciety  in  1840,  undertakes  to  deliver  an  school. 

abusive  and  calumnious  lecture  to  its  5)  Plea  for  Presbytery,  p.  347. 


CHAP.  VI.]  CHURCH    IN    FAVOR    OF    PRESBYTERY.  423 

bishop,  but  metropolitan.  He  does  not  say  what  were  the 
peculiar  powers  or  functions  of  this  individual,  nor  do  we 
know  whether  the  original  title  would  be  best  translated  by 
metropolitan  or  moderator;  but  from  his  acknowledged  inter- 
polation of  their  document,  we  know  under  what  a  strong 
prelatical  bias  the  translation  was  made;  and  we  know  also, 
that  when  Gilly,  another  churchman,  speaks  of  the  moderator 
of  the  Waldenses,  he  takes  the  liberty  of  calling  him  'the 
primate  of  their  church.'  That,  up  to  the  year  1599,  the  pres- 
ident of  the  Syrian  churches  could  only  have  been  in  the 
rank  of  moderator,  and  not  in  that  of  prelate,  is  proved  by 
that  decree,  already  quoted,  in  which  it  is  stated,  that  up  to 
that  time,  they  had  '  only  two  orders,  diaconate  and  priest- 
hood.' But,  even  though  it  could  be  shown,  that,  notwith- 
standing this  decree,  they  had  now  an  office  something 
resembling  a  prelate,  we  would  not  be  much  surprised,  as 
Buchanan  tells  us,  they  have  some  ceremonies  nearly  allied 
to  those  of  the  Greek  church,  and  the  person,  whom  he 
improperly  calls  bishop,  acknowledged,  'that  some  customs 
had  been  introduced  during  their  decline,  in  the  latter  centu- 
ries, which  had  no  necessary  connection  with  the  constitution 
of  their  church.'  Thus  easily  are  these  Syrian  prelates,  and 
all  arguments  drawn  from  them,  blown  away,  like  chaff 
before  the  wind,  and  their  testimony,  as  an  original  branch 
of  the  church  of  Christ,  shown  to  be  in  favor  of  presbytery. 


CHAPTER    VII. 


THE  TESTIMONY  OF  THE  REFORMED  CHURCHES,  INCLUDING 

THE   ENGLISH,  TO   THE    CLAIM   OF  PRESBYTERY   TO  THE 

TRUE    APOSTOLICAL    OR    MINISTERIAL     SUCCESSION. 


Next  to  the  apostolic  age  in  purity,  piety,  and  importance, 
is  the  age  of  the  reformation ;  and  next  to  the  apostles  in 
rank,  authority,  and  wisdom,  do  we  place  those  mighty  minds, 
which,  under  the  blessing  of  God,  restored  the  liberty  of  the 
world.  'Perhaps,'  says  bishop  Van  Mildert,1  'we  shall 
search  in  vain,  either  in  ancient  or  modern  history,  for  exam- 
ples of  men  more  justly  entitled  to  the  praise  of  splendid 
talents,  sound  learning,  and  genuine  piety.' 

The  testimony  of  such  men  upon  the  question  before  us, 
we  must  believe  to  be  second  only  to  that  of  the  word  of 
God.  That  any  considerable  portion  of  them  should  agree 
in  supporting  our  views,  is  a  matter  of  great  encouragement 
and  praise.  But  how  much  more  is  this  the  case,  if,  upon 
looking  back  to  the  era  of  the  reformation,  we  observe,  to  use 
the  words  of  Dr.  Hawkins,2  '  the  whole  of  western  Christen- 
dom engaged  in  one  momentous  discussion  concerning  the 
first  principles  of  faith  and  worship ;  vast  powers,  and  vast 
erudition,  the  piety  and  intrepidity  of  martyrs,  all  brought  to 
bear  upon  the  great  truths  of  the  gospel,  their  import,  defini- 
tion, and  proof;  and  the  result  of  those  awful  discussions,  in 
every  church,  the  solemn  and  repeatedly  renewed  assevera- 
tion of  the  truth  of  the  great  doctrines  '  of  presbyterianism. 

Now  that  such  was  the  case,  we  are  prepared  to  contend. 
We  affirm,  that  all  the  reformers  who  broke  loose  from  the 
fetters  of  the  Romish  hierarchy  and  authoritative  tradition ; 
who  sought  their  faith  in  the  pure  and  unadulterated  word  of 
God  ;  and  who  framed  their  churches  according  to  the  pattern 
showed  to  them  in  the  mount ;  were  unanimously  guided  by 

1)  Boyle,  Lect   vol.  i.  p.  288.  2)  Bampton  Lectures,  p.  117. 


CHAP.   VII.]  TESTIMONY    OF    THE    REFORMERS.  425 

a  superhuman  power  to  the  doctrine  of  ministerial  parity, 
and,  in  all  essential  points,  to  the  system  of  presbyterianism. 
This,  we  think,  can  be  made  to  "appear  from  their  public 
standards,  from  their  public  practice,  and  from  their  publicly 
expressed  opinions. 

Let  us  be  understood.  We  do  not  assert  that  every  indi- 
vidual, who  may  be  enrolled  among  the  reformers,  was  thus 
explicit  in  testifying  to  these  principles ;  nor  that  they  who 
did  so  were  uniformly  consistent  in  their  views  and  expres- 
sions ;  nor  that  all  the  reformed  churches  settled  down  into 
that  entire  system  of  ecclesiastical  arrangements,  which  now 
characterizes  what  is  peculiarly  called  the  presbyterian 
church.  Individuals  may  be  found  cherishing  their  ancient 
prejudices.  These  prejudices  will  be  found  clinging  to 
others,  who  had  become  sensible  of  their  falsity.  An  undue 
depreciation  of  the  question  of  external  government  and 
order,  led  others  to  countenance  prelatical  orders  as  '  tolera- 
ble fooleries.'  While  in  the  minutiae  of  ecclesiastical  disci- 
pline all  agreed  to  differ,  and,  amid  their  varying  customs, 
to  preserve  the  unity  of  the  Spirit  in  the  bonds  of  peace. 

We  are  aware,  that  prelatists  are  found  ready  to  hazard  an 
opposite  assertion,  and,  by  forged  letters,1  by  garbled  ex- 
tracts, by  disjointed  expressions,  by  misinterpreted  passages, 
by  tortured  phrases,  and  the  betrayed  kindness  of  individuals, 
to  make  a  show  of  evidence  against  us.  Nor  do  we  hope 
that  the  time  will  speedily  come,  when  such  bold  assertion, 
and  parade  of  words,  addressed  to  willing  ears,  and  to  minds 
seduced  by  fashion,  form,  and  show,  will  cease  to  make  im- 
pression, or  to  gain  the  applause  of  victory.  But,  sure  we 
are,  that  every  candid  and  impartial  inquirer  will  be  forced  to 
admit,  that  on  the  subject  of  church  government  the  reformers 
are  with  presbylerians,  and  against  prelatists. 

In  offering  this  testimony,  we  shall,  for  the  sake  of  order, 
first  produce  that  of  the  continental,  and,  secondly,  that  of  the 
Anglican  reformers,  and  shall  divide  the  former  into  that  of 
the  Lutherans  and  the  Calvinists.  The  precursors  of  the 
reformation  shall  be  heard  at  another  stage  of  our  argument, 
when  it  will  appear  that  they  were  as  wonderfully  united  in 
their  ecclesiastical  as  in  their  doctrinal  views. 

1)  In   the   year  1559  appeared  a  This  was  thought  to  have  influenced 

pamphlet,  with  the  names  of  Luther  Henry  VIII,  in  opposing  the  reform 

and  Melancthon.  datum  in  Germania  views.     See    Hoffman's    Anglo-Prus- 

mense    mart,    &c.    which     retracted  sian  Bishopric,  p.  20.     See  five  other 

former  statements,  and  made  declara-  examples  exposed  by  Dr.  McCrie,  in 

tions  in  favor  of  prelacy.     It  was  re-  Miscell.  Wks.  pp.  163-185. 
futed   by   Luther    and     Melancthon. 

54 


426  TESTIMONY    OF    ALL    THE    REFORMED  [BOOK   II. 

Lutheranism  is  the  established  or  prevailing  form  of  the 
protestant  faith  in  Saxony,  Prussia,  Wirtemberg,  Hanover, 
Northern  Germany,  Denmark,  Sweden,  and  Norway.  The 
views  of  this  immense  body,  on  the  subject  before  us,  must 
be  sought  in  their  standards. 

Without  adducing  all  that  might  be  brought  from  the  Au- 
gustan Confession,  or  the  defence  of  that  Confession,1  we 
will  refer  to  the  Articles  of  Smalkald,  composed  by  Luther, 
subscribed  by  Melancthon,  Jonas,  Bugenhagius,  Myconius, 
and  received  by  the  protestants  of  the  city,  from  which  they 
are  entitled.  It  is  here  declared,  '  it  is  clear,  even  from  the 
confession  of  our  adversaries,  that  this  power,  (to  wit,  of 
preaching,  dispensing  the  sacraments,  excommunication,  and 
absolution,)  is  common  to  all  that  are  set  over  the  churches, 
whether  they  be  called  pastors,  presbyters,  or  bishops. 
Wherefore  Jerome  plainly  affirms,  that  there  is  no  difference 
between  a  bishop  and  a  presbyter ;  but  that  every  pastor  is  a 
bishop,'  &c.  Similar  views  will  be  found  in  '  A  Syllabus  of 
Controverted  Points,  drawn  out  of  the  received  Creeds  and 
Confessions;'  in  the  Confessions  of  Saxony,  drawn  up  in 

1551,  by  Melancthon,  and  subscribed  by  all  the  Saxon 
churches ;  in  the  Confessions  of  Wirtemberg,  drawn  up  in 

1552,  and  presented  to  the  Council  of  Trent.  The  testimony 
of  Luther  may  be  seen  at  great  length,  and  in  the  most  full 
and  explicit  language,  and  derived  from  all  his  works,  in  the 
able  work  of  Dr.  Miller.2  These  testimonies  are  written  out 
before  us,  but  are  withdrawn  on  account  of  the  increasing 
size  of  our  volume. 

It  is,  therefore,  unnecessary  to  dwell  upon  the  testimony 
of  individuals,  after  such  clear  and  manifest  evidence  from 
the  confessions,  to  which  they  were  attached ;  nor  to  reply  to 
the  vain  objections,  founded  upon  isolated  expressions  of 
particular  men.  Those  who  wish  to  see  these  testimonies 
more  at  large,  may  consult  the  works  referred  to.3 

The  doctrine  and  discipline  of  the  reformed  communions, 
as  modelled  by  Calvin,  have  been  received  by  the  protestant 
churches  of  Switzerland,  Holland,  France,  and  Scotland,  the 
Palatinate  in  Germany,  the  republic  of  Bremen,  the  Belgic 
provinces,    Prussia,    and  the  churches   of   Nassau,    Hanau, 

1)  See  Dr.  Miller  on  the  Min.  the  Hierarchy,  pp.  89-97;  Jameson's 
part  ii.  p.  372.  Cyp.  Isot.  pp.  443,  444;  Boyse's  Anct. 

2)  On  the  Ministry,  2d  ed.  pp.  Christ  p.  281,  &c. ;  Henderson's  Rev. 
367-370.  and      Consideration,     pp.    182-185; 

3)  Pr.  Miller  on  the  Min.  2d  ed.  Welles's  Vind.  of  Presb.  Ordination, 
Phil.  1S30,  part  i.  1.6,  and  part  ii.  letter  p.  149,  &c. ;  Ayton's  Constit.  of  the 
351  ;      Jameson's     Fundamentals     of  Ch.  §  10,  Append. 


CHAP.    VII. J        CHURCHES    IN     FAVOR    OF    PRESBYTERY.  427 

[senburgh,  Anhalt,  and  others.1  The  Bentiments  of  this 
Immense  body,  which  has  continued  to  diffuse  itself  through 
England,  Ireland,  America,  and  various  portions  of  the 
globe,  must  also  be  sought  definitively  in  their  confession! 
of  faith. 

The  confession  of  France,  firel  presented  to  Francis  II.  in 
1 559,  and  adopted  by  all  the  churches  of  that  kingdom,  at 

their  first  national  synod,  held  at  Paris  in  thai  year,  is  most 
thoroughly  presbyterian,  and  may  be  taken  as  a  specimen  of 
the  whole.  In  Aris.  twenty-ninth  and  thirtieth,  it  Is  decreed,8 
'  We  believe  that  this  true  church  ought  to  be  governed  by  that 
discipline  which  our  Lord  Jesus  hath  established ;  so  that 
there  should  be  in  the  church  pastors,  elders,  and  deacon-. 
that  the  pure  doctrine  may  have  its  course,  and  vices  may  be 
reformed  and  suppressed,  that  the  poor  and  other  afflicted 
persons  may  be  succored  in  their  necessities,  and  that  in  the 
name  of  God  there  may  be  holy  assemblies,  in  which  both 
great  and  small  may  be  edified.  We  believe,  that  all  true 
pastors,  in  whatever  places  they  may  be  disposed,  have  all 
the  same  authority,  and  equal  power  among  themselves, 
under  Jesus  Christ  the  only  head,  the  only  sovereign,  and 
only  universal  bishop;  and  that,  therefore,  it  is  unlawful  for 
any  church  to  challenge  unto  itself  dominion  or  sovereignty 
over  another,  however  it  is  requisite  that  all  care  should  be 
taken  for  the  keeping  up  of  mutual  concord  and  brotherly 
love.' 

It  is  true,  that  the  French  Huguenot  churches,  like  the 
early  Scottish  church,  had  superintendents  for  general  con- 
sultation as  to  the  government  of  the  church ;  'a  president, 
in  each  colloquy  (or  classis)  or  synod  shall  be  chosen,  with 
a  common  consent,  to  preside  in  the  colloquy  or  synod,  and 
to  do  every  thing  that  belongs  to  it;  and  the  said  office  shall 
end  with  each  colloquy  or  synod  and  council.'3  And.  in 
order  still  further  to  prevent  any  misunderstanding  of  the 
term,  it  was  determined,4  'that  the  word  superintendent  in  the 
two  and  thirtieth  article,  is  not  to  be  understood  of  any  supe- 
riority of  one  pastor  above  another,  but  only  in  general  of 
such  as  have  office  anil  charge  in  the  church.'  Again  si  this, 
king  .lames  of  England  sent  a  remonstrance."'  bul  without 
leading  to  any  alteration.6  Similar,  and  mosl  thorough- 
going presbyterian  sentiments,  will  be  found  expressed  in  the 

1)    Conder's  Analytic  View  of  all  3)     £.••■    Laval'l    History    of    the 

Relig.  pp.  225,220.  Reformation  in  Fiance,  vol.  i 

Quick's  Synodicon  Gall.  Ref.  l)   Quick,  ibid,  vol.  i.  ] 

fol.  l,  p.  13.  5)  Laval,  Mint  '^  il.  v.  p    115. 

McCrie'i  M« 


428  TESTIMONY    OK    THE    REFORMED    CHURCHES.         [BOOK  II. 

Belgic  Confession  of  1566  ;x  in  the  Helvetic  Confession  of 
1566  ;2  and  in  the  Confession  of  Bohemia  of  1573  ;3  and  in 
the  system  of  the  churches  in  the  Grisons.4  With  these 
confessions  agree  the  views  of  Calvin,  Beza,  and  all  their 
coadjutors.  We  have  already  exposed  the  improper  conduct 
of  prelatists  in  reference  to  the  testimony  of  Calvin.  This 
course  is,  however,  still  pursued  by  men  high  in  office,  doubt- 
less from  the  conviction,  that  the  opinions  of  Calvin,  as  an 
interpreter  of  scripture,  are  justly  entitled  to  more  weight  than 
those  of  any  other  single  reformer,  Anglican  or  continental ; 
and  that  they  were  greatly  instrumental  in  moulding  the 
opinions  of  the  English  reformers.  We  refer  our  readers  to 
Dr.  Millers  late  reply  to  a  letter  of  bishop  Ives  of  North 
Carolina,  in  reference  to  this  subject,  as  giving  the  testimony 
of  Calvin  in  all  fulness  and  fairness,  and  as  justly  exposing 
the  craft  of  prelatists. 5 

The  opinions  of  Beza  and  other  illustrious  men,  both  dur- 
ing the  age  of  the  reformers  and  in  the  succeeding  times,  it  is 
unnecessary  to  produce,6  had  we  either  the  time  or  the  means 
of  doing  it,  with  any  thing  like  detail.  It  is  enough  for  us  to 
know,  that,  at  the  time  of  the  reformation,  the  presbyterian 
form  of  church  government,  in  its  essential  elements,  was 
established  in  all  the  reformed  churches  of  Germany,  Scot- 
land, France,  Geneva,  Switzerland,  Holland,  &c.  '  And  that, 
although,7  in  the  Lutheran  churches  of  Germany,  Sweden, 
Denmark,  and  other  parts  of  Europe,  some  ministers  were 
invested  with  preeminent  powers,  under  different  titles,  yet 
that  they  all,  with  one  voice,  declared,  that,  in  the  apostolic 
church,  ministerial  parity  prevailed ;  and  acknowledged,  that 
the  order  of  bishops  was  brought  in  by  human  authority,  and 
was  a  regulation  of  expediency  alone.  Such  was  the  doc- 
trine maintained  by  those  churches,  at  that  interesting  period, 
and  the  same  doctrine  has  been  maintained  by  them,  uniform- 
ly, to  the  present  hour.  It  follows,  then,  that  the  church  of 
England  stands  absolutely  alone,  in  the  whole  protestant 
world,  in  asserting  the  divine  institution  of  prelacy,  (if,  indeed, 
she,  as  a  church,  does  assert  it,  which  many  of  her  own  most 

1)  See  in  the  Harmony  of  Con-  tagonist.  For  when  he  had  published 
fessions,  §  11.  his  misrepresentations,  and  Dr.  Miller 

2)  In  ibid.  sent  this  reply,  it  was  refused  admis- 

3)  Ibid.  sion  into  the  same  paper.     Sic  omnes 

4)  Dr.  McCrie's  Hist,  of  the  Ref.  et  semper. 

in  Italy,  p.  375,  2d  ed.  6)  See  in  addition  to  the  former 

5)  The  unmanly  course  ever  references,  Dr.  Miller  on  the  Min.  part 
pursued  by  prelatical  controversialists  ii.  letter  S  ;  Baxter  on  Episc.  pp.  72, 
was  most  fully  sustained  by  this  an-  73,  179,  181. 

7)  Dr.  Miller,  p.  387. 


CHAP.  VII.]       TESTIMONY  OP  THE  CHURCH  OP  ENGLAND.  429 

respectable  sons  have  denied,)  that  every  other  protestant 
church  on  earth  has  formally  disclaimed  this  doctrine,  and 
pronounced  the  distinction  between  bishops  and  presbyters 
to  be  a  mere  human  invention,  and,  consequently,  that  the 
doctrine  of  the  jure  divino  prelatists,  is  so  far  from  being  the 
general  doctrine  of  the  reformed  churches,  that  it  never  has 
been,  and  is  not,  now,  received,  by  more  than  a  very  small 
portion,  a  mere  handful,  of  the  protestant  world.' 

That  such  was  the  ecclesiastical  system  adopted  by  these 
reformed  churches,  might  be  shown  from  the  statements  of 
eminent  Romanists  and  prelatists  now  before  us.1  We  had 
also  entered,  at  length,  upon  the  exhibition  of  the  original 
presbyterian  character  of  the  church  of  Scotland,  in  opposition 
to  the  baseless  assertions  of  Mr.  Palmer,  and  others,  that  it 
was  episcopal.  As,  however,  there  is  little  danger  of  their 
finding  any  credence  with  sensible  and  intelligent  minds,  we 
will,  for  the  present,  merely  refer  our  readers  to  the  following 
works,  where  they  will  find  such  allegations  fully  disposed  of.2 

We  will  now  inquire  how  far,  in  its  original  constitution, 
the  church  of  England  was  conformable  to  all  the  other  re- 
formed churches.  And  as  the  virulent  poison  of  that  un- 
charitable spirit,  which  would  elevate  the  question  of  prelacy 
into  an  essential  doctrine,  has  flowed  from  this  fountain,  any 
evidence  against  such  sentiments,  drawn  from  the  same  source, 
may  operate  as  a  counteractive  and  antidote,  and  reinvig- 
orate  that  scriptural  system  whose  destruction  has  been  so 
ardently  sought. 

Let  us,  then,  now  hear  what  some  of  the  leading  divines  and 
bishops  of  the  reformation  have  deliberately  and  freely 
spoken,  in  their  resolutions  of  certain  questions  given  to  them 
for  their  special  consideration,  and  with  a  view  to  regulate 
the  changes  proposed  by  king  Henry  VIII,  in  the  year  A.  D. 
1540. 3  Archbishop  Cranmer  says,  '  In  the  admission  of 
many  of  these  officers  to  divers  comely  ceremonies  and 
solemnities  used,  which  be  not  of  necessity,  but  only  for  a 
good  order,  and  seemly  fashion,  &c.     Again,  he  teaches,4  '  the 

1)  See  given  in  Dr.  Miller,  ibid,  of  Knox;  also,  Life  of  Melville ;  also, 
pp.  384,  385  ;  Jameson's  Fundament.  Miscellaneous  Wks.  p.  17S;  Jamieson's 
of  the  Hier.  p.  96  ;  by  Heylin;  Perce-  Hist,  of  the  Culdees.  p.  323;  Hender- 
val  on  Apost.Succ.p.9;  Baptist  Noel,  son's  Life  and  Times,  Introd. ;  The 
on  the  Unity  of  the  Ch.:  Howell's  First  and  Second  Books  of  Discipline  ; 
Famil.  Letters,  3,  395.  The  Book  of  the  Universal  Kirk  and 

2)  See    Calderwood's    Epistolae  Acts  of  the  Assembly. 

Philad.  Vind.  in  Altare  Damascen.pp.  3)  Burnet,  Ref.  vol.  i.  p.  464,  and 

710,  717,  &c. ;    Jameson's  Fundament.     Records,  B.  iii.  §  21,  vol.  iv.  p.  123,&c. 
of  the  Hier.  p.  72,  &c;    McCrie's  Life  4)  Ibid,  p.  125  ;    10th  Quest,  and 

p.  1272, 12. 


430  TESTIMONY   OF  THE   ENGLISH   REFORMERS  [BOOK   II. 

bishops  and  priests  were  at  one  time,  and  were  not  two 
things,  but  both  one  office,  in  the  beginning  of  Christ's  re- 
ligion.' And  again,  '  In  the  New  Testament  he  that  is  ap- 
pointed to  be  a  bishop,  or  a  priest,  needeth  no  consecration 
by  the  scripture,  for  election,  or  appointing  thereto,  is  suf- 
ficient.' 

1  It  was  proposed  by  Cranmer,'  says  Dr.  McCrie,1  'to  erect 
courts  similar  to  the  kirk-sessions,  and  provincial  synods, 
afterwards  introduced  into  the  Scottish  church.'2  In  1547, 
Cranmer,  with  the  concurrence  of  the  Protector,  and  privy 
council,  invited  a  number  of  learned  protestants  from  Ger- 
many into  England.  He  placed  Peter  Martyr,  Martin  Bucer, 
Paul  Fagius,  and  Emanuel  Tremellius,  as  professors  in  the 
universities  of  Oxford  and  Cambridge.3  '  In  a  word,  pure 
presbyterianism,  without  disguise,'  says  Courayer,  '  discovers 
itself  in  all  the  answers  of  these  divines,  and  it  is  but  too  ap- 
parent, that  the  chief  aim  of  these  divines  and  prelates,  was, 
to  extinguish  episcopacy.'4  'It  is  very  evident,'  he  adds, 
'  that  Cranmer  was  not  master,  but  that  he  had  been  forced 
to  follow  the  governing  party,  which  was  for  episcopacy.5 
This  would  appear  to  be  certain  from  the  recorded  fact,  that, 
as  Bonner  was  busy  in  degrading  him  from  the  highest  to  the 
lowest  order,  he  mildly  said,  '  All  this  needed  not ;  I  had 
myself  done  with  this  gear  long  ago.'6 

The  bishop  of  London,  in  answer  to  the  same  interroga- 
tories, replied,7  '  I  think  the  bishops  were  first,  and  yet  I  think 
it  is  not  of  importance,  whether  the  priest  then  made  the  bish- 
op, or  else  the  bishop  the  priest,  considering,  (after  the  sen- 
tence of  St.  Jerome,)  'that  in  the  beginning  of  the  church  there 
was  none  (or  if  it  were  very  small)  difference,  between  a  bish- 
op and  a  priest,  especially  touching  the  signification.'  The 
bishop  of  Rochester  replied,8  '  I  find  in  scripture,  that  Christ, 
being  both  a  priest  and  a  bishop,  ordained  his  apostles,  who 
were  both  priests  and  bishops.'  Dr.  Robertson  replied,9  lhic 
opinor  absurdum  esse,  ut  sacerdos  episcopum  consecret,  si 
episcopus  haberi  non  potest?  Dr.  Cox  teaches,10  '  although 
by  scripture,  (as  St.  Hierome  saith,)  priests  and  bishops  be 
one,  and,  therefore,  the  one  not  before  the  other ;  yet  the 
bishops,  as  they  be,  were  after  priests,  and  therefore  made  of 

1)  Life  of  Knox,  vol.  i.  p.  402.  6)  Fox,  p.  1SS3,  col.  ii.;    Willet 

2)  Burnet,  iii.  214  ;    Reformatio.  Syn.  Pap.  p.  268. 
Leg.  Eccl.  cap.  8, 10.  7)  Burnet,  p.  125. 

3)  Ibid,  p.  79.  8)  Ibid. 

4)  Ibid,  p.  152.  9)  Ibid,  p.  125,  col.  ii. 

5)  Ibid,  p.  165.  10)  Ibid. 


CHAP.  VII.]  IN    FAVOR    OF    PRESBYTERY.  431 

priests.'  Dr.  Day  replied, J '  and  in  the  beginning  of  the  church 
as  well  that  word  episcopus  as  presbyter,  was  common,  and 
attributed  both  to  bishops  and  priests.'  Dr.  Redmayn  ans- 
wered,2'they  be  of  like  beginning,  and  at  the  beginning  were 
both  one,  as  St.  Hierome,  and  other  old  authors  show  by 
scripture,  whereof  one  made  another  indifferently.'  Dr.  Edge- 
worth  answered,3  '  Christ,  our  chief  priest  and  bishop,  made 
his  apostles  priests  and  bishops  all  at  once ;  and  they  did  like- 
wise make  others,  some  priests  and  some  bishops ;  and,  that 
the  priests  in  the  primitive  church  made  bishops,  I  think  no 
inconvenience,'  &c. 

The  learned  martyr,  John  Lambert,  in  1538,  in  his  answer - 
to  his  ninth  and  twenty-second  articles  clearly  determines  the 
parity  and  identity  of  bishops  and  presbyters,  or  ordinary 
ministers,4  as  '  touching  priesthood  in  the  primitive  church, 
when  virtue  bare  (as  ancient  doctors  do  deem,  and  scripture 
in  mine  opinion  recordeth  the  same)  most  room,  there  were 
no  more  officers  in  the  church  of  God  than  bishops  and  dea- 
cons :  that  is  to  say,  ministers,  as  witnesseth,  besides  scripture, 
full  apertly  Jerome,  in  his  commentaries  upon  the  epistles  of 
Paul,'  &c.  In  the  book  entitled, '  The  Image  of  a  very  Christian 
Bishop  and  of  a  Counterfeit  Bishop,'  written  and  printed  cum 
privileg-io,  in  the  early  part  of  the  reign  of  Henry  VIII,  about 
1530,  among  much  to  the  same  effect,  the  author  says,5  '  and 
to  utter  at  once  what  I  think,  Lo,  I  will  here  play  the  Bedell 
or  common  cryer.  Be  it  known  to  all  men,  that  the  bishops 
ol  Rome  with  their  clients,  bishops,  which  do  now  exercise 
tyranny  upon  so  many  cities,  in  most  ample  and  large  domin- 
ion, are  not  bishops  by  the  ordination  of  God,  but  by  error, 
and  by  the  seduction  of  the  devil,  and  by  the  traditions  of  men  ; 
wherefore,  without  doubt,  they  are  the  messengers  and  vicars 
of  Satan.  First,  Paul  writeth  unto  Titus,  that  he  should  con- 
stitute and  ordain  presbyters  in  every  town.  Here,  I  suppose, 
that  no  man  can  deny,  that  all  one  thing  is  signified  by  this 
word  presbyter,  and  by  this  word  episcopus,  in  St.  Paul's 
writings.'  Similar  views  were  presented,  in  a  treatise  pub- 
lished about  the  same  time,  on  the  causes  of  the  divisions  be- 
tween the  spirituality  and  the  temporality  ;6  by  Roderick  Mars, 
sometimes  a  Gray  friar,  in  his  '  Complaint  to  the  Parliament 
House  of  England,'  about  the  thirty-seventh  year  of  this  king's 

1)  Burnet,  p.  125.  5)  Prvnne's  English  Lordly  Pre 

2)  Ibid.  lacy,  vol.  ii.  p.   394,  Lond.  1641 ;    see 

3)  Ibid.  also   pp.  393,  400,  402. 

4)  Fox's   Acts  and  Monuments,  6)  In  ibid.  p.  407-409. 
pp.  541,  553,  old  ed.  in  Prynne,  3S6. 


432  TESTIMONY    OF  THE  ENGLISH  REFORMERS.       [BOOK   II. 

reign  ;x  by  Tindal,  who  suffered  martyrdom  in  this  reign,  and 
who  is  very  explicit,  saying,  that  '  all  that  were  called  elders, 
(or  priests,  if  they  so  will,)  were  called  bishops  also.'2 

In  1536,  the  Institution  of  a  Christian  Man,  or  The  Bish- 
op's Book,  was  published,  '  recommended,  and  subscribed  by 
the  two  archbishops,  nineteen  bishops,  and  by  the  lower  house 
of  convocation.'  From  this  work  we  have  already  quoted  at 
some  length.3  It  is  here  maintained,  that  there  are  '  but  two 
orders  of  the  clergy  ;  and,  that  no  one  bishop  has  authority 
over  another,  according  to  the  word  of  God.'  In  chapter 
forty-three  it  is  said,4  '  the  truth  is,  that  in  the  New  Testament 
there  is  no  mention  made  of  any  degrees  or  distinction  in  or- 
ders, but  only  of  deacons  or  ministers,  and  of  priests  or  bish- 
ops. Nor  is  there  any  word  spoken  of  any  other  ceremony 
used  in  the  conferring  of  this  sacrament,  but  only  of  prayer, 
and  of  the  imposition  of  the  bishop's  hand.'5 

The  declaration  of  the  functions,  &c,  of  bishops  and  priests, 
was  made  in  1538. 6  It  was  signed  by  Cromwell,  the  two 
archbishops,  and  eleven  bishops,  and  twenty  divines  and  casu- 
ists. It  says,  '  there  is  no  mention  made  of  any  degrees  or 
distinctions  in  orders,  but  only  of  deacons  or  ministers,  and 
of  priests  or  bishops,  nor  is  there  any  word  spoken  of  any 
other  ceremony  used  in  the  conferring  of  this  sacrament,  but 
only  of  prayer,  and  the  imposition  of  the  bishop's  hands.'  It 
also  says,7 'that  this  office,  this  power  and  authority,  was 
committed  and  given  by  Christ  and  his  apostles,  unto  certain 
persons  only,  that  is  to  say,  unto  priests  or  bishops,  whom 
they  did  elect  and  admit  thereunto,  by  their  prayers  and  im- 
position of  their  hands.' 

In  1543,  another  book,  called  The  King's  Book,  was  pub- 
lished, also  known  as  A  Necessary  Erudition  for  a  Christian 
Man.  It  was  drawn  up  by  a  committee  of  bishops  and  di- 
vines ;  and  was  afterwards  read  and  approved  by  the  lords 
spiritual  and  temporal,  and  the  lower  house  of  parliament.  It 
was  published  by  order  of  the  king,  and  designed  for  a  stan- 
dard of  christian  belief.  In  this  book  it  was  taught,  that  there 
is  '  no  real  distinction  between  bishops  and  priests.'  Then 
follows  this  remarkable  passage  :  '  of  these  two  orders  only, 

1)  Prynne's  English  Lordly  Pre-  5)  See  also,  for  further  evidence, 
lacy,  vol.  ii.  p.  409.  '  A  Supplication  to  King  Henry  VIII, 

2)  See  in  Dr.  Miller  on  the  Min.  in  1544,  given  by  Prynne  in  his  Eng- 
p.  139.  lish  Lordly  Prelacy,  vol.  ii.  p.  379-  386. 

3)  See  Lect.  on  Apost.  Succ.  and  6)  See  Burnet's  Reform.  Adden- 
also  above, B. i.  ch.  vii.  §  l;also  Brooks's  da,  No.  5.  vol.  iv.  pp.  175,  176. 
Hist.of  Rel.  Lib.  vol.i.  p.  135.  7)  Burnet,  vol.  iv.  p.  176. 

4)  SeeVaughan's  Wickliffe,  ii.  276. 


CHAT.   VII.]  IN    FAVOR    OF    PRESBYTERY.  433 

that  is  to  say,  priests  and  deacons,  scripture  maketh  express 
mention,  and  how  they  were  conferred  of  the  apostles,  by 
prayer  and  imposition  of  hands;  but  the  primitive  church 
afterwards  appointed  inferior  degrees,  as  sub-deacons,  acolytes, 
exorcists,  &c. ;  but  lest,  peradventure,  it  might  be  thought  by 
some,  that  such  authorities,  powers,  and  jurisdictions  as  pa- 
triarchs, primates,  archbishops,  and  metropolitans  now  have, 
or  heretofore  at  any  time  have  had,  justly  and  lawfully  over 
other  bishops,  were  given  them  by  God  in  holy  scripture,  we 
think  it  expedient  and  necessary,  that  all  men  should  be  ad- 
vertised and  taught,  that  all  such  lawful  power  and  authority, 
of  any  one  bishop  over  another,  were  and  be  given  them  by 
the  consent,  ordinances,  and  positive  laws  of  men  only,  and 
not  by  any  ordinance  of  God  in  holy  scripture  ;  and  all  such 
power  and  authority,  which  any  bishop  has  used  over  another, 
which  have  not  been  given  him  by  such  consent  and  ordi- 
nance of  men,  are  in  very  deed  no  lawful  power  but  plain 
usurpation  and  tyranny.' 

In  1550,  an  act  was  passed  for  ordaining  ministers,  in 
which  no  express  mention  is  made  in  the  words  of  ordina- 
tion, whether  it  be  for  a  priest  or  a  bishop.  It  is  well  known, 
that  Edward  VI,  had  matured  a  plan  for  the  still  further  ad- 
vancement of  the  reformation  in  the  church  of  England.1 
'  Omitting  other  proofs,'  says  Dr.  McCric,  after  speaking  of 
the  king's  own  private  plan2  of  his  intentions,  I  shall  produce 
the  decisive  one  of  his  conduct  towards  the  foreign  churches 
settled  in  London,  under  the  inspection  of  John  A.  Lasco.' 
'  A.  Lasco  published  an  account  of  the  form  of  government 
and  worship  used  in  these  congregations,  which  greatly  re- 
sembled that  which  was  introduced  into  Scotland  at  the  es- 
tablishment of  the  reformation.  The  affairs  of  each  congre- 
gation were  managed  by  a  minister,  ruling  ciders,  and 
deacons;  and  each  of  these  offices  was  considered  as  of 
divine  institution.  Ut  infra,  fol.  1,  6,  b.  11.  The  inspection 
of  the  different  congregations  was  committed  to  a  superin- 
tendent, '  who  was  greater  only  in  respect  of  his  greater  trouble 
and  care,  not  having  more  authority  than  the  other  elders, 
either  as  to  the  ministry  of  the  word  and  sacraments,  or  as  to 
the  exercise  of  ecclesiastical  discipline,  to  which  he  was  sub- 
ject equally  with  the  rest.' 

Notwithstanding,  however,  these  principles  and  practices,3 
and  their  disconformity  to  the  church  of  England,  A.  Lasco 

1)  See   McCrie's   Life  of  Knox,  3)  See  Brooke's  Hist,  of  Rel.  Lib. 
vol.  i.  p.  I1 1"'.                                                 vol.  i.  p.  204. 

2)  Do.  p.  400. 

55 


434  TESTIMONY    OF    THE    CHURCH    OF    ENGLAND      [BOOK  II. 

addressed  a  petition  to  Sir  William  Cecil,  humbly  request- 
ing that  these  foreign  protestants  might  be  favored  with  a 
warrant  from  his  majesty's  council,  not  to  be  interrupted  for 
withdrawing  from  the  worship  of  the  parish  churches,  but  be 
allowed  to  assemble  themselves  in  separate  congregations. 
The  excellent  petitioner  was  held  in  the  highest  esteem,  and 
warmly  patronized  not  only  by  Cranmer,  but  also  by  his 
majesty,  who  listened  to  his  petition,  and  granted  him  letters 
patent,  forming  him  and  the  other  ministers  of  the  foreign 
congregations  into  a  body  corporate.  The  patent  is  expressed 
in  these  words  :  '  Edward,  &C.'1 

But  the  ulterior  design2  which  the  king  intended  to  accom- 
plish by  the  incorporation  of  this  church,  is  what  we  have 
particularly  in  view.  This  is  explicitly  stated  by  A.  Lasco, 
in  a  book  which  he  published  in  1555.  In  his  dedication  of 
it  to  Sigismund,  king  of  Poland,  he  says ;  «  When  I  was 
called  by  that  king,  (Edward  VI,)  and  when  certain  laws  of 
the  country  stood  in  the  way,  so  that  the  public  rites  of  divine 
worship  used  under  popery  could  not  immediately  be  purged 
out ;  (which  the  king  himself  desired  ;)  and  when  I  was  ear- 
nest for  the  foreign  churches,  it  was  at  length  his  pleasure, 
that  the  public  rites  of  the  English  churches  should  be  re- 
formed by  degrees,  as  far  as  could  be  got  done  by  the  laws 
of  the  country;  but  that  strangers,  who  were  not  strictly 
bound  to  these  laws  in  this  matter,  should  have  churches 
granted  unto  them,  in  which  they  should  freely  regulate  all 
things,  wholly  according  to  apostolical  doctrine  and  practice, 
without  any  regard  to  the  rites  of  the  country  ;  that  by  this 
means  the  English  churches  also  might  be  excited  to  embrace 
the  apostolical  purity,  by  the  unanimous  consent  of  all  the 
estates  of  the  kingdom.  Of  the  project,  the  king  himself, 
from  his  great  piety,  was  both  the  chief  author  and  the 
defender.' 

Philpot,  archdeacon  of  Winchester,  and  one  of  the  most 
pious,  learned,  and  able  of  the  whole  body  of  reformers, 
English  or  continental, 3  and  who  suffered  martyrdom  A.  D. 
1554,  in  his  examinations,  said ;  '  I  allow  the  church  of 
Geneva,  and  the  doctrine  of  the  same  ;  for  it  is  catholic  and 
apostolic,  and  follows  the  doctrine  which  the  apostles 
preached ;    and  the  doctrine  taught   and   preached  in  king 

1)  See  given  in  the  above,  and  in  design  of  further  reformation,  see  nu- 
Neal.  merous  proofs  in  Brooke's  Hist,  of  Rel. 

2)  Life  of  Knox,  vol.  i.  p.  408.  Lib.  vol.  i.  pp.  198-207,  and  299-308. 
See  the  whole  of  this  important  note,  3)  See  Lond.  Chr.  Obs.  June, 
and,  in   further  consideration  of  this  1841,  p.  340. 


CHAP.  VII.]  IN    FAVOR    OF    PRESBYTERY.  435 

Edward's  days,  was  also  according  to  the  same.  And  are 
you  not  ashamed  to  persecute  me  and  others  for  your  church's 
sake,  which  is  Babylonian,  and  contrary  to  the  true  catholic 
church  ? '  In  the  conference,  in  1555,  between  the  martyr 
Bradford  and  Dr.  Harpesfield,  of  London,  '  tell  me,'  said  the 
former,  '  whether  the  scripture  knew  any  difference  between 
bishops  and  ministers,  which  ye  call  priests  ? '  To  which 
question  the  Romanist  answered,  that  there  was  not ;  thus 
proving,  that  in  Queen  Mary's  days,  both  Romanists  and 
protestants  admitted  this  fact.1  Thus  Thomas  Beacon,  a 
prebend  of  Canterbury,  in  his  catechism,  printed  in  1560, 
teaches  that  there  is  'no  difference  at  all  between  a  bishop 
and  spiritual  minister  and  presbyter,  their  authority  and  power 
is  one.'2  In  1578,  as  we  have  seen,  dean  Wittingham  was 
excommunicated  by  Sandys,  the  archbishop  of  York,  for 
want  of  episcopal  orders.  But  upon  appeal,  his  ordination 
was  pronounced  to  be  of  a  better  sort  than  that  of  the  arch- 
bishop himself.3  Robert  Wright,  who  had  been  ordained  by 
a  presbytery  at  Antwerp,  (having  sought  their  ordination 
from  certain  scruples  about  his  prelatical  orders,)  preached 
seven  years  in  the  university  of  Cambridge,  with  approba- 
tion, though  afterwards  silenced  by  the  bishop  of  London.4 
At  this  time  there  were  some  scores,  if  not  hundreds,  in  the 
church,  who  had  been  ordained  according  to  the  manner  of 
the  Scots,  or  other  foreign  churches.5 

About  the  year  1582,  we  also  find  that  the  archbishop  of 
Canterbury  licensed  John  Morrison,  a  Scotch  divine,  and  who 
had  received  no  other  ordination  than  what  he  had  received  . 
from  a  Scotch  presbytery,  to  preach  over  his  whole  province, 
in  these  words ;  '  Since  you  were  admitted  and  ordained  to 
sacred  orders,  and  the  holy  ministry,  by  the  imposition  of 
hands,  according  to  the  laudable  form  and  rite  of  the  re- 
formed church  of  Scotland ;  and  since  the  congregation  of 
the  county  of  Lothian  is  conformable  to  the  orthodox  faith 
and  sincere  religion,  now  received  in  this  realm  of  England, 
and  established  by  public  authority ;  we,  therefore,  approv- 
ing and  ratifying  the  form  of  your  ordination  and  preferment, 
done  in  such  manner  aforesaid,  grant  you  a  license  and  fac- 
ulty to  celebrate  divine  offices,  to  minister  the  sacraments,' 
&c.6     By  the  13  Eliz.  c.  12,  ordination  by  presbyters,  without 

1)  See   Fox's  Acts  and  Monum.  4)  Neal's  Hist.  vol.  i.  p.  310. 
vol.  iii.  p.  293.  5)  Neal,  ibid. 

2)  In  Prynne's  Engl.  Prel.  p.  434.  6)  Neal,  ibid,  pp.  310,  311. 

3)  See  the  facts  fully  stated  above, 
in  B.  i.  ch.  x.  §  3. 


436  THE    TESTIMONY    OF    THE    ENGLISH    CHURCH       [BOOK  II. 

a  bishop,  was  admitted ;  and  ministers  who  received  their 
orders  in  foreign  churches,  were  recognised. l  In  1586,  in 
consequence  of  13  Eliz.  there  were  many  Scotch  divines  in  pos- 
session of  benefices ;  and  Mr.  Travers,  who  had  been  ordained 
at  Antwerp,  was  lecturer  at  the  Temple,  and  afterwards  provost 
of  Trinity  college,  Dublin,  and  tutor  to  archbishop  Usher.2 

Of  bishop  Jewell,  whose  writings  constitute  the  authorized 

exponents  of  the  doctrines  of  the  Anglican  reformers,  and  who 

died  in  1571,  it  is  said,  by  a  recent  writer,  that  so  decidedly 

presbyterian  were  his  tendencies,   and  so  liberal  his  views, 

that '  his  contemporaries  on  the  bench  looked  upon  him  as 

an  enthusiast,  having  a  decided  leaning  to  the  puritans.'3 

Dr.  Bancroft,4  who  was  archbishop  of  Canterbury,  preaching 

at  Paul's  Cross  on  February  9th,  in  that  noted  year,  158S, 

told  his  auditory,  that  Aerius  was  condemned  of  heresy  with 

J  the  consent  of  the  universal  church,  for  asserting  that  there 

v  was  no  difference,  by  divine  right,  between  a  bishop  and  a 

presbyter;  and  that  the  puritans   were    condemned  by  the 

I  church  in  Aerius.     The  famous  Sir  Francis  Knolls,  being 

•  surprised  at  such  doctrine,  to  which  they  were  not  in  that 

age  so  much   used   as  we  have  been   since,  wrote  to  the 

learned  Dr.  John  Reynolds,  who  was  universally  reckoned 

i  the  wonder  of  his  age,  to  desire  his   sense  about  the  matter. 

The  doctor  wrote  him  word  in  answer,  that  even  Bellarmine 

the  Jesuit  owned  the  weakness  of  the  answer  of  Epiphanius 

to  the  argument  of  Aerius.     He  cites  also  bishop   Jewell, 

?    who,  when    Harding   had   asserted   the  same  thing  as  Dr. 

Bancroft,  alleged  against  him  Chrysostom,  Austin,  Hierome, 

and   Ambrose.     He  adds  from   Medina,  Theodoret,  Prima- 

sius,  Sedulius,  and  Theophylact.    And  further  adds,  himself, 

Oecumenius,  Anselm,  archbishop  of  Canterbury,  on  Titus  ; 

and  another   Anselm,    Gregory,  and    Gratian.     It   may  be 

added,  says  he,  that  they,  who,  for  these  five  hundred  years, 

I    have  been  industrious  in  reforming  the  church,  have  thought 

that  all  pastors,  whether  called  bishops  or  presbyters,  have, 

according  to  the  word  of  God,  like  power  and  authority. 

Such,  however,  was  the  unpopularity  of  these  sentiments 
in  Bancroft's  day,  that,  in  his  answer  to  the  foreign  churches, 
settled  in  London,  he  subsequently  says ;  '  I  am  sensible  of 
the  merits  of  Edmond  Grindal,  bishop  of  London,  and  my 
predecessors  in  this  bishopric,  who  had  reason  to  take  your 
churches,  which  are  of  the  same  faith  with  our  own,  under 

1 )  Neal,  ibid.  4)   Calamy's  Def.  of  Nonconf.  vol. 

2)  Neal,  ibid,  p.  289.  i.  pp.  87-89. 

3)  Dr.  Taylor's  Biography  of  the 
age  of  Elizab.  vol.  ii.  p.  97. 


CHAP.  VII.]  IN    FAVOR    OF    PRESBYTERY.  437 

their  patronage.'  In  1610,  also,  when  he  was  archbishop  of 
Canterbury,  he  agreed,  that  where  bishops  could  not  be  had, 
ordination  by  presbyters  must  be  valid,  otherwise  the  char- 
acter of  the  foreign  churches  might  be  questioned.  This  was 
on  the  consecration  of  the  Scotch  bishops,  when  bishop  An- 
drewes  raised  the  question  of  their  ordination,  and  consequent 
fitness  for  consecration.  Bancroft  insisted  on  their  fitness,  and 
justified  his  opinion  by  examples  from  antiquity,  when  all 
acquiesced  in  his  opinion. 

In  1592,  archbishop  Adamson,  who  had  lent  himself,  sonl 
and  body,  as  a  royal  tool,  to  king  James,  being  called  to  look 
forward  to  the  prospect  of  death,  applied-  to  the  provincial 
synod  of  Fife  for  restoration  to  office,  and  recanted  his  epis- 
copal sentiments.1 

It  was  the  design  of  Whitgift's  work,  which  was  written 
at  the  request  of  archbishop  Parker,  the  first  archbishop  of 
the  resuscitated  English  church,  to  prove  that  no  certain  form 
of  government  was  enjoined  in  scripture,  or  to  be  perpetually 
observed  in  the  church.2  Such,  also,  was-  the  design  of 
Hooker's  immortal  work,  as  has  been  fully  shown.3  But  he 
goes  further.  He  says,4  '  Now  whereas  hereupon  some  do  \ 
infer,  that  no  ordination  can  stand,  but  only  such  as  is  made 
by  bishops,  which  have  had  their  ordination  likewise  by  other 
bishops  before  them,  till  we  come  to  the  very  apostles  of 
Christ  themselves ;  in  which  respect  it  was  demanded  of  I 
Beza,  at  Poissie,  '  by  what  authority  he  could  administer  the 
holy  sacraments,  &c.  (the  reader  will  observe  the  instance  I 
cited.)  .  .  .  To  this  we  answer,  that  there  may  be  some- 
times very  just  and  sufficient  reason  to  allow  ordination  made 
without  a  bishop.'  And,  in  a  former  passage  of  the  same 
book,  he  distinctly  admits  the  power  of  the  church  at  large 
to  take  away  the  episcopal  form  of  government  from  the 
church,  and  says,  '  let  them,  (that  is,  bishops,)  continual///  bear 
in  mind,  that  it  is  rather  the  force  of  custom,  whereby  the  J 
church,  having  so  long  found  it  good  to  continue  under  the 
regiment  of  her  virtuous  bishops,  doth  still  uphold,  maintain, 
and  honor  them  in  that  respect,  than  that  any  such  true  and 
heavenly  law  can  be  showed,  by  the  evidence  whereof  it  may 
of  a  truth  appear,  that  the  Lord  himself  hath  appointed  pres- 
byters for  ever  to  be  under  the  regiment  of  bishops,'  adding 
that '  their  authority'  is  'a  sword    which   the   church 

HATH  POWER  TO  TAKE  FROM  THEM.' 

1)  Life  of  Melville,  pp.  397,  398.  3)  Lect.  on  the  Apost.  Succ.  pp. 

2)  Def.  p.  659.     See   Essays  on    70,  71. 

the  Ch.  p.  234.  4)  See   given  in  Goode's  Rule  of 

Faith,  vol.  ii.  pp.  94,  95. 


438  THE    ENGLISH    REFORMERS    TRESBYTERIAN.         [BOOK  IT. 

In  1582,  archbishop  Grindal1  issued  a  circular  to  the 
bishops,  inciting  them  to  make  a  collection  in  aid  of  the 
distressed  protestants  of  Geneva,  whom  he  designates  as 
'  so  notable  and  sincere  a  church.'' 

Thus,  says  the  episcopalian  author  of  Essays  on  the 
Church,'2  '  thus,  for  half  a  century  consecutively,  and  under 
four  successive  primacies,  we  find  the  voice  of  the  church  of 
England  unvarying  on  this  point  —  that  churches  which 
were,  as  Grindal  describes  that  of  Scotland,  '  conformable  to 
the  orthodox  faith  and  sincere  religion,  now  received  in  this 
realm  of  England,'  were  to  be  accounted  as  sisters,  notwith- 
standing differences  in  discipline. 

The  same  episcopal  writer  adds  ;3  '  It  was  the  judgment  of 
her  founders,  perhaps  unanimously,  but  at  all  events  gener- 
ally, that  the  bishop  of  the  primitive  church  was  merely  a 
presiding  elder  ;  a  presbyter  ruling  over  presbyters ;  identical 
in  order  and  commission  ;  superior  only  in  degree  and  in 
authority Mr.  Palmer,  as  we  have  seen,  con- 
fesses that  it  was  the  opinion  of  Jewell,  Hooker,  and  Field, 
'  that  a  mere  presbyter  might  confer  every  order  except  the 
episcopate ; '  in  other  words,  that  the  apostolic  succession  of 
the  presbyters  might  be  continued  by  presbyters,  the  episco- 
pate being  laid  aside  or  lost.' 

These  testimonies  of  learned,  able,  and  pious  divines  of 
the  church  of  England,  and  these  facts,  from  her  practice  and 
spirit  towards  other  churches,  might  be  continued  to  a  much 
later  date.  We  have  before  us  such  a  catena,  which  would 
fill  one  of  our  longest  chapters,  and  which  is  itself  but  a  portion 
of  what  we  had  collected.  We  must,  however,  omit  it,  with 
a  simple  reference  to  some  works,  where  many  of  them  may 
be  found.4  Enough  has  been  given  to  prove,  that  the  early 
reformed  church  of  England  was  made  prelatical  by  the  force 
of  external  circumstances,  wholly  beyond  her  control,  and 
that  the  sentiments  of  her  reformers  and  leaders  were  decid- 
edly presbyterian.  And  we  are  also  prepared  to  show,  that 
such  also  have  been  the  views  of  many  of  her  wisest,  best, 
and  ablest  members,  down  to  the  present  day,  and  that  they 
are  not  indistinctly  shadowed  forth  even  under  the  veil  of 
those  formularies,  by  which  she  now  gives  expression  to  her 
prelatical  creed. 

1)  Ibid,  p.  235,  and  Strype's  Life,  Rev.  and  Consid.  p.  268,  &c.  and  363; 
B.  ii.  ch.  xiii.  Goode's  Div.   Rule  of  Faith,  vol.  ii. 

2)  Ibid,  pp.  236,  237.  102,  103,  where    dean  Field's  views 

3)  Essays  on  the  Church,  p.  2.r>1.  are  given  at  length;  and  bishop  Ove- 

4)  See  Dr.  Miller  on  the  Min.  part  rail  and  Mason,  on  pp.  97 -100;  Baxter 
i.  letter  vii.  and  part  ii.  letter  x.;  Plea  on  Episcopacy. 

for  Presb.  p.   159,  &c;    Henderson's 


BOOK    III. 


THE  ANTIQUITY  OF  PRESBYTERY;  WITH  AN  EXHIBITION  OF  THE 

FRESBYTERIANISM  OF  THE  ANCIENT  CULDEES  OF 

IRELAND  AND  SCOTLAND,  AND  ALSO 

OF  ST.  PATRICK. 


CHAPTER  I. 


THE    ANTIQUITY   OF   PRESBYTERY. 


§  1.  All  the  churches  founded  b//  the  apostles,  and  during 
the  age  of  the  apostolieal  and  primitive  fathers,  were  pr<  s- 
bijterian. 

It  is  manifest,  that  even  had  the  church  gone  wrong  for 
eighteen  hundred  years,  in  assuming  and  continuing  the  pre* 
latical  form,  this  would  not  make  her  righl  for  a  single  hour; 
and  that,  if  the  most  ancient  customs  and  forms  are  to  be 
preferred,  eighteen  hundred  years  are  more  than  fifteen  hun- 
dred, and  the  gospel  institutions,  which  are  presbyterian, 
more  ancient  than  those  of  prelacy  and  popery.1  But  it  is 
not  true  that  presbytery,  which  was,  as  we  have  seen,  the 
apostolical  institution,  was  not  also  the  form  iA  primitive 
Christianity,  or  that  it  has  not  found  witnesses  for  its  truth  in 
every  age  of  the  church.  The  contrary,  however,  is.  as  usual, 
most  peremptorily  asserted.  Hooker  challenges  us  to  find 
one  church  on  earth  that  has  not  been  'ordered  by  episcopal 
regiment,'  since  the  very  times  of  the  apostles.8  '  This  bold 
challenge  has  been  repeated  by  every  prelatical  advocate,  yea, 
by  every  youthful  tyro,  who  is  permitted  to  wear  episcopal 
robes,  and  who,  forthwith,  feels  authorized  to  proclaim  the 
1  impious'  conduct  of  all  who  dare  to  preach  the  gospel  with- 
out prelatical  orders. ; 

Now  while  we  contend,  that  that  church  is  most  ancient 
which  is  the  most  scriptural,  and  not  that  which  may  plead 
the  greatest  antiquity  in  its  presenl  location,  or  in  its  origin,  <>r 
in  it>  ecclesiastical  founders ; '  yet  do  we  also  allow,  thai  the  true 

1)  D'Aubigne,   Hist,   of    Ref.   ii.  ["his  was  done by the  R( 
512.    En?,  ed.  ,  in  St  Philip's  church,  in   C 

2)  Eccl.  Pol.  Prof.  $  4,  vol.  i.  p,  ton,  in  the  yeaT  of  our  Lord 

34      II.ui!..  ed.     See  also  bishop  He-  the  Cine. 

ber's  Serm.  in  Engl.  'J .11  amined.  pr>.  88,  69j    Bull's  Vindk.  of 

Ch.  of  Ens;,  p. 
56 


442  ALL    THE    APOSTOLICAL    AND    PRIMITIVE    [BOOK  III. 

primitive  custom  of  the  apostolic  churches  must  be  allowed  great 
weight  in  determining  the  comparative  claims  of  rival 
denominations.  We  boldly,  therefore,  accept  the  challenge 
offered.  We  affirm,  that  many  churches  can  be  pointed  out 
which  have  been  governed  on  true  presbyterian  principles, 
and  that  witnesses  for  these  principles  have  not  been  want- 
ing in  every  age,  and  in  every  church.  Nay,  we  go  further. 
We  retort  the  challenge.  We  throw  it  back  upon  these 
proud  Goliahs,  and  we  demand  of  them  to  produce  one 
church  for  the  first  two  centuries,  which  was  ordered  accord- 
ing to  their  prelatical  principles.  We  deny  that  any  such 
example  ever  has  been  produced,  or  that  it  ever  can;  and  we 
affirm,  that  during  that  period,  all  existing  churches  were  in 
principle  presbyterian  ;  and  that  they  knew  nothing,  whatever, 
of  diocesan  prelates ;  nothing  of  subject  presbyters  ;  nothing  of 
the  doctrine  of  three  orders  of  the  ministry,  as  of  divine  right ; 
nothing  of  the  reordi nation  of  presbyters,  in  order  to  constitute 
them  presidents  of  the  churches  ;  nothingof  the  claims  now  put 
forth  for  prelates,  as  possessing  originally  and  primarily  the 
exclusive  powers  of  preaching,  administering  the  sacraments, 
of  excommunication,  jurisdiction,  and  ordination. 

Presbyterianism,  so  far  as  it  bears  on  our  present  inquiry, 
teaches  that  there  is  but  one  general  order  of  the  ministry, 
called  indifferently,  bishops,  presbyters,  teachers,  or  ministers  ; 
that  there  is,  besides,  a  class  of  officers  called  deacons ;  and 
representatives  of  the  people,  called  seniors,  or  elders;  that 
in  any  given  church,  where  circumstances  required  ihe  coop- 
eration of  a  plurality  of  presbyters,  one  was  chosen  to  act  as 
president  and  primus  inter  pares ;  and  that  in  such  a  presby- 
tery, whether  attached  to  a  single  church,  or  to  many  churches, 
one  of  the  presbyters  chosen,  either  in  turn,  or  by  age  and 
merit,  would  necessarily  act  as  the  organ,  president,  or  mod- 
erator of  the  body,  either  for  a  limited  time,  or  for  life.  This 
system  of  presbyterianism,  we  affirm,  prevailed  in  the  apos- 
tolical churches,  and  in  the  churches  of  the  apostolical  and 
primitive  fathers,  and,  to  some  extent,  in  other  churches  of 
every  age. 

That  it  prevailed  in  every  one  of  the  apostolical  churches, 
or  those  founded  by  the  apostles,  we  have,  we  think,  given 
sufficient  evidence,  and  were  prepared  to  offer  more,  did  our 
limits  permit.1  From  the  whole  of  our  scriptural  investiga- 
tion, we  think  it  is  most  clear,  lhat  all  the  apostolic  churches, 
of  which  we  have  any  record  in  the  New  Testament,  were 

1)  An  examination  into  the  case     as  a  mark  of  a  true  church,  has  been 
of  all  the  scriptural  churches,  and  also     omitted  for  want  of  room, 
into  the  nature  and  value  of  antiquity, 


CHAP.  I.]  CHURCHES    WERE    PRESBYTERIAN.  443 

constituted  on  the  principles  of  presbyterianism,  and  were  not 
under  prelatical  regiment.  By  the  rules,  therefore,  of  induc- 
tion, we  are  entitled  to  deduce  the  universal  fact,  that  all  the 
churches  throughout  the  world,  constituted  by  the  apostles, 
were  presbyterian,  and  not  prelatic,  in  their  government. 
We  therefore  throw  back  the  challenge  of  our  Romish  and 
prelatic  brethren,  and  demand  of  them  the  production  of  one 
single  church,  which,  under  apostolic  direction,  was  perma- 
nently organized  as  a  prelatic  diocesan  church. 

We  proceed  to  state,  that  all  the  churches,  of  which  we 
have  any  mention  in  the  writings  of  the  apostolical  fathers, 
were  presbyterian.  Of  this,  also,  the  reader  has  had  ample 
opportunity  of  forming  his  own  judgment.  These  churches 
were  particular,  and  not  diocesan.  They  each  of  them  pos- 
sessed, according  to  their  necessities,  a  plurality  of  presby- 
ters, who  were  also  called  bishops.  These  presbyters  elected 
one  to  preside  among  them,  and  all  together  constituted  the 
council,  or  presbytery,  by  which  all  the  affairs  of  the  church 
were  ordered,  all  its  ordinances  regulated,  and  its  entire  dis- 
cipline conducted.  Of  the  various  orders  of  the  prelacy 
there  was,  at  this  period,  no  conception.  A  diocesan  bishop 
was  not  existing  in  any  portion  of  the  world.  And  ordi- 
nation by  diocesan  prelates  was  not  only  unknown,  and 
unrecorded,  but  impossible,  in  the  circumstances  of  the  case. 
All  these  facts  have  been  already  established,  and  the  proof 
need  not  be  again  offered.  We  again,  therefore,  throw  back 
the  challenge  of  our  opponents,  and  demand  evidence  for  the 
existence,  during  the  whole  period  of  the  apostolic  fathers,  of 
one  single  example  of  diocesan  episcopacy. 

This  is  equally  true  of  the  churches  which  existed  during 
the  time  of  the  primitive  fathers,  or  from  A.  D.  150  to  A.  D. 
300.  During  this  period,  also,  the  government  of  the  church 
was  vested  in  a  council  of  presbyters,  without  whose  author- 
ity nothing  could  be  done ;  over  whom  presided  one  chosen 
by  the  presbyters  and  the  people,  who  was  called  the  chief 
presbyter,  and  by  a  variety  of  other  names,  and  who  was 
gradually  known,  in  an  especial  manner,  by  the  title  of  bishop. 
But  this  president  was  no  more  than  the  pastor  of  a  particu- 
lar christian  community.  He  had  no  power  beyond  his  own 
charge  and  people.  He  had  no  sole  power  of  jurisdiction,  or 
of  ordination,  even  within  his  own  congregation  ;  but  was  in 
all  things  subject  to  his  brethren,  and  required  to  act  with 
them,  and  by  their  direction,  even  in  the  matter  of  ordination. 
He  was  expected  personally  to  superintend  the  administra- 
tion of  all  ordinances,  and  the  exercise  of  all  discipline,  and 
to  be  acquainted  with  the  peculiar  cases  of  each  individual 


444  THE    CHURCHES    OP    GAUL    AND  [BOOK  III. 

communicant.  There  was,  therefore,  nothing  like  diocesan 
prelacy,  in  its  essential  principles,  in  any  of  the  churches 
during  this  whole  period;  while  there  was  nothing  contra- 
dictory to  the  essential  principles  of  presbyterianism,  but 
much  that  can  be  harmonized  with  no  other  system  of  church 
government  and  polity. 

We  again,  therefore,  throw  back  the  empty  glove  of  our 
opponents,  and  boldly  deny  the  existence,  during  all  this 
period,  of  one  single  example  of  diocesan  prelacy. 

§  2.     The   churches  of    Gaul,   Alexandria,  Egypt,   Scythia, 
Bavaria,  and  the  East,  were  presbyterian. 

'There  is  great  probability,'  says  Stillingfleet,1  'that  where 
churches  were  planted  by  presbyters,  as  the  church  of  France 
by  Andiochus  and  Benignus,  that  afterwards,  upon  the 
increase  of  churches  and  presbyters  to  rule  them,  they  did, 
from  among  themselves,  choose  one  to  be  as  the  bishop  over 
them;  as  Pothinus  was  at  Lyons;  for  we  nowhere  read 
in  those  early  plantations  of  churches,  that  where  there  were 
presbyters  already,  they  sent  to  other  churches  to  derive  their 
episcopal  ordination  from  them.'  Their  bishops,  therefore, 
could  have  been  nothing  more  than  presiding  presbyters,  and 
could  have  no  resemblance  to  prelates,  claiming  to  hold  their 
office  by  divine  right,  and  as  transmitted  by  the  exclusive 
agency  of  prelates,  like  themselves.  This  is  demonstrated 
from  the  case  of  Irenaeus,  who  was  one  of  those  bishops, 
having  succeeded  Pothinus  in  the  church  at  Lyons.  Pothi- 
nus is  called,  by  Nicephorus,  the  minister  of  this  church  ;2 
and  in  the  letter  of  the  church,  'bishop,'  the  terms  being 
then,  as  in  scripture,  synonymous,  since  the  only  other  office 
they  mention  is  that  of  deacons.3  This  certainly  was  the 
opinion  of  Irenasus,  himself,  as  has  been  fully  shown.4  Thus 
he  ascribes  to  the  succession  of  presbyters,  the  preserving  the 
apostolical  doctrines,  and  also  the  succession  of  the  episco- 
pacy.5 In  a  word,  the  church  of  France  was  at  this  time 
only  under  the  government  of  presbyters,  since  Victor,  bishop 
of  Rome,  writing  to  Dionysius,  bishop  of  Vienna,  in  refer- 
ence to  the  Easter  controversy,  desires  him  to  write,  not  to 
any  prelates,  but  to  the  presbyters.6 

Irenaeus  was  constant  moderator  of  the  council  of  the 
church  of  Lyons  for  twenty-four  years,  but  he  was  no  pre- 

1 )  Iren.  p.  375.  4)  See  B.  ii.  ch.  ii.  §  2. 

2)  In  Dr.  Wilson's  Prim.   Govt.  5)  See  B.  ii.ch.  iii.  §4- 

p.  26.'  G)  Ep.  ad  Dion,  in  Blondel.  Apol. 

3)  Ibid,  p.  2G.  p.  35. 


CHAP.  I.]  ALEXANDRIA    WERE    PRESBYTERIAN.  445 

late.  Just  as  in  the  Waldensian  churches,  the  moderator 
presided  for  life;  just  as  the  French  presbyteries  had  constant 
moderators  ;  and  as  Dr.  Twiss  was  constant  moderator  of  the 
Westminster  Assembly;  while  none  of  these  were  regarded 
as  any  thing  more  than  presbyters.  The  churches  of  Gaul 
were  therefore  presbyterian,  and  not  prelatical ;  and  their 
bishops  were  the  presiding  presbyters  of  particular  churches, 
and  not  diocesan  prelates. 

The  church  at  Alexandria  was  also  presbyterian.  This 
church  was  one  of  the  most  important  in  ecclesiastical  anti- 
quity. It  was  the  seat  of  the  most  celebrated  of  all  the  chris- 
tian colleges  or  theological  seminaries,  which  was  renowned 
for  its  doctors,  and  illustrious  for  its  literature.  Pantcenus, 
Clement  Alexandrinus,  and  Origen,  were  its  three  first  profes- 
sors. This  church,  therefore,  was  a  city  set  on  a  hill,  and 
gave  example  and  precept  to  all  others.  Now  that  the  gov- 
ernment of  this  church  was  presbyterian,  is  susceptible  of  the 
clearest  proof.  That  it  was  so,  is  affirmed  by  Jerome.  After 
quoting  several  passages  of  scripture,  to  show  that  a  presby- 
ter and  bishop  are  the  same,  this  father  adds,1  '  At  Alexan- 
dria, also,  from  Mark,  the  evangelist,  1o  ihe  bishops  Heraclas 
and  Dionysius,  the  presbyters  always  called  one,  elected  from 
among  themselves,  and  placed  in  a  higher  rank,  their  bishop; 
just  as  an  army  may  constitute  its  general,  or  deacons  may 
elect  one  of  themselves,  whom  they  know  to  be  diligent,  and 
call  him  archdeacon.  For  what  does  a  bishop  do,  with  the 
exception  of  ordination,  which  a  presbyter  may  not  do?' 
1  This  passage,'  says  Mr.  Goode,  an  eminent  episcopalian 
author,-  '  clearly  maintains,  that,  as  it  respects  the  sacerdotal 
character,  there  is  no  difference  between  a  bishop  and  a  pres- 
byter; the  difference  being  only  to  be  found  in  the  ecclesias- 
tical distribution  of  the  duties  to  be  performed  by  them,  and 
what  is  still  more  to  our  purpose,  that  appointment  to  the 
episcopal  office  by  the  presbyters  of  a  church,  is  sufficient  (as 
far  as  essentials  are  concerned)  to  entitle  a  presbyter  to  per- 
form the  duties  of  the  episcopal  function.' 

It  is,  however,  attempted  to  obviate  the  force  of  this  testi- 
mony, by  alleging  that  Jerome  only  attributes  to  the  presby- 
ters the  right  of  election,  while  the  bishops  they  elected  were 
ordained  by  some  other  bishops.  This,  however,  is  a  vain 
refuge,  and   can   afford  no   help.3     Jerome   is  not  alone  in 

1)  Ep.  ad  Evagrum,  Ep.  14G,  op.  3)  See  this  fullv  and  most  admi- 
tom.  i.  col.  10S2,  ed.  17G6.  rably  shown  by  Baxter,  in  his  Disput. 

2)  Divine  Rule  of  Faith,  vol.  ii.  on  Ch.  Govt.  pp.  216- 21S,  which  we 
P-  84-  are  obliged  to  omit. 


446  THE    CHURCH    OF    ALEXANDRIA  [BOOK  III. 

thus  testifying  to  the  presbyterianism  of  Alexandria.  Euty- 
chius,  who  was  afterwards  bishop  of  ihis  church,  bears  the 
same  testimony.  After  mentioning x  that  Mark,  the  evange- 
list, went  and  preached  at  Alexandria,  and  appointed  Hana- 
nias  the  first  patriarch  there,  he  adds,  '  Moreover,  he  appointed 
twelve  presbyters  with  Hananias,  who  were  to  remain  with 
the  patriarch,  so  that  when  the  patriarchate  was  vacant,  they 
might  elect  one  of  the  twelve  presbyters,  upon  whose  head 
the  other  eleven  might  place  their  hands,  and  bless  him,  (or 
invoke  a  blessing  upon  him,)  and  create  him  patriarch,  and 
then  choose  some  excellent  man,  and  appoint  him  presbyter 
with  themselves,  in  place  of  him  who  was  thus  made  patri- 
arch, that  there  might  be  always  twelve.  Nor  did  this  custom 
respecting  the  presbyters,  namely,  that  they  should  create  their 
patriarchs  from  the  twelve  presbyters,  cease  at  Alexandria, 
until  the  times  of  Alexander,  patriarch  of  Alexandria,  who 
was  of  the  number  of  the  three  hundred  and  eighteen  bishops 
at  Nice,  &c.'  '  I  have  given  this  passage,'  adds  Mr.  Goode, 
'in  full,  because  it  has  been  sometimes  replied,  that  it  referred 
only  to  the  election  of  the  patriarch,  and  that  we  must  sup- 
pose that  he  was  afterwards  consecrated  to  his  office  by  bish- 
ops. But  it  is  evident  to  any  one  who  takes  the  whole  passage 
together,  that  such  an  explanation  is  altogether  inadmissible ; 
and,  moreover,  the  very  same  word  (which,  following  Selden, 
we  have  translated  created,)  is  used  with  respect  to  the  act  of 
the  presbyters,  as  is  afterwards  used  with  respect  to  the  act  of 
the  bishops  in  the  appointment.' 

The  learned  Renaudot,  in  attempting  to  show  that  this 
passage  refers  only  to  election,  and  not  to  ordination,  is  compel- 
led, however,  to  contradict  himself,  and,  like  the  high  priest, 
to  bear  witness  to  the  truth.  For,  while  he  insists  that  the 
word  here  means  holding  up  their  hands,  as  in  elections,  and 
not  laying  on  hands,  as  in  ordination,  yet,  afterwards  2  stum- 
bling upon  a  passage  from  Severus,  where  the  former  trans- 
lation suited  his  views,  or  was  so  evidently  the  sense  of  the 
passage  that  he  could  not  otherwise  translate  it,  he  blames 
Echellensis  and  Morinus  for  translating  it  in  the  latter  way, 
and  affirms  it  to  mean  ordination  by  the  imposition  of  hands. 
This,  surely,  betrays  rather  a  bad  cause ;  and,  in  fact,  the 
meaning  of  the  passage  does  not  wholly  depend  upon  that 
one  word,  the  word  created  being  still  more  decisive.  Renau- 
dot further  admits,  that  George  Elmacinus,  in  the  first  part  of 
his  Annals,  gives  the  same  account  of  the  matter  as  Euty- 

1)   See    the    original,    given     in     SI,  and  in  Selden's  ed.of  his  work,  pp. 
Goode's  Div.  Rule  of  Faith,  vol.  ii.  p.    29-31. 

2)  See  Goode,  as  above,  p.  82. 


CHAP.  I.]  WAS    PRESBYTERIAN.  447 

chius.1  He  also  quotes  Severus,  as  saying,  that,  after  the 
death  of  Theonas,'2  'the  priests  and  people  were  collected 
together  at  Alexandria,  and  laid  their  hands  upon  Peter,  his 
son  in  the  faith,  and  disciple,  a  priest,  and  placed  him  in  the 
patriarchal  throne.'  But  even  this  is  not  all.  The  aulhor  of 
the  Commentaries  on  St.  Paul's  Epistles,  attributed  to  Am- 
brose, or  to  Hilary,  says,3  '  Moreover,  in  Egypt  the  presbyters 
confirm,  if  a  bishop  is  not  present.  But  because  the  presby- 
ters that  followed  began  to  be  found  unworthy  to  hold  the 
primacy,  the  custom  was  altered,  the  council  foreseeing  that 
not  order,  but  merit,  ought  to  make  a  bishop,  and  that  he 
should  be  appointed  by  the  judgment  of  many  priests,  lest, 
&c.'  The  same  thing  is  affirmed  by  the  author  of  Questions 
on  the  Old  and  New  Testament,  ascribed  to  Augustine.4 
And  that  this  practice — the  election  and  consecration,  as  far 
as  any  form  of  induction  was  used,  of  their  bishop  by  the  pres- 
byters— was  not  peculiar  to  Alexandria,  but  was  common  even 
at  Rome,  is  proved  by  Eusebius,  who  relates,5  that  'in  the 
appointment  of  Fabiarras  to  the  bishropric  of  Rome,  the 
assembly  that  met  to  elect  a  bishop,  having  fixed  upon  him, 
placed  him  at  once  on  the  episcopal  throne]  '  which  seems  to 
me,'  says  Mr.  Goode,  very  candidly,  '  irreconcilable  with  the 
notion  of  the  essential  necessity  of  episcopal  consecration,  to 
have  entitled  him  to  the  episcopal  seat,  for  he  was  installed 
in  it  without  any  such  consecration.' 

Now  it  is  thus  proved,  by  numerous  witnesses,  and  admit- 
ted by  many  prelatists,0  that  the  presbyters  of  Alexandria 
made  their  own  bishops,  by  electing  one  of  their  number  to 
act  as  their  president,  and  that  this  practice  had  continued 
since  the  days  of  Mark,  that  is,  about  thirty-five  years  before 
the  death  of  John  ;  ~  so  that  we  have  the  implied  approbation 
of  this  apostle  for  a  practice  subversive  of  all  ideas  of  prelacy, 
and  based  upon  the  assumed  certainty  of  the  principles  of 
presbyterian  parity.8 

1)  Hist.  Patr.  Alex.  p.  10  in  ordination ;'  Thomdike's  Prim.  Govt. 
Goode.  of  the  Ch.  p.  58;  Nolan's  Cath.  Char. 

2)  In  ibid.  of  Christ,  p.  19;     Natalus  Alex.  Eecl. 

3)  In  Eph.  4:  11,  12,  in  Goode.  Dissert,  pp.  123,  124. 

4)  August.  Op.  torn.  iii.  App.  7)  It  is  supposed,  that  Mark  was 
col.  93.  slain  about  the  sixty-third  year  of  our 

5)  Eccl.Hist.  B.vi.c.29,in  Goode,  Lord,  and  the  tenth  of  Nero  ;  and  that 
vol.  ii.  p.  85.  Peter  and  Paul  were  put  to  death  about 

6)  Palmer's  Treatise  on  the  Ch.  the  sixty-sixth  year  of  our  Lord,  and 
ii.  418.  'It  may  seem  probable,  from  thirteenth  of  Nero  ;  and  that  John,  the 
Jerome,'  says  Burnet,  (Obs.on  the  1st  apostle,  died  about  the  ninety-eighth 
Canon,  p.  8,)  'that  presbyters  chose  year  of  our  Lord,  and  the  first  of  Tra- 
their  own  bishop  out  of  their  own  jan,  which  was  about  thirty-five  years 
number,  and  that,  in  Alexandria,  they  after  the  death  of  Mark. 

made  him  bishop  without  any  new  8)  See  also  on  this  subject  Jame- 


448  THE    SCYTHIAN,    BAVARIAN,    EASTERN,  [BOOK  III. 

In  connection  with  this  proof  of  the  presbyterianism  recog- 
nised in  the  church  of  Alexandria,  may  be  mentioned  the 
fact,  stated  by  Du  Pin,  in  relation  to  the  case  of  Ischryas.1 
'  Ischryas,'  says  Du  Pin,  '  had  dwelt  at  Mareotis,  a  country  of 
Egypt,  where  there  was  neither  bishop  nor  suffragan,  but  only 
a  great  many  parishes  governed  by  priests.1 

The  Scythian  churches  beyond  Ister,-  from  the  year  260, 
which  was  that  of  their  captivity  under  Galienus,  and  the  time 
of  their  first  conversion  to  Christianity,  till  the  year  327,  were 
governed  by  presbyters,  and  were  thus  about  seventy  years 
without  any  bishop.  For,  according  to  Philostorgius,  the  Gothic 
churches  were  both  planted  and  governed  by  presbyters,  and 
continued  so  till  Ulphilas,  whom  he  names  their  first  bishop. 
This  bishop  was  ordained  by  Eusebius  and  others,  that 
joined  him  at  the  time  of  the  change  of  their  government 
under  Constantine. 

The  province  of  Bavaria,3  which  was  anciently  inhabited 
by  the  Boiarians,  was  governed  by  presbyters,  without  bish- 
ops, for  any  thing  that  appears,  from  the  time  of  their  first 
conversion  to  the  christian  faith,  till  Vivilo  was  imposed  on 
them  by  pope  Zachary,  about  the  year  740.  It  is  thought 
they  were  brought  to  embrace  the  gospel  about  the  year  540, 
and  so  it  was  two  hundred  years  before  they  had  any  other  gov- 
ernment among  them  save  that  of  presbytery.  For  Bonifacius 
Moyunt  visited  this  church,  and  found  no  bishop  among 
them  save  Vivilo,  who  had  been  lately  sent  thither.  This, 
Boniface,  the  pope,  writes  in  these  words,  namely,  <  Whereas, 
thou  signifiedst  thou  hadst  travelled  through  the  nation  of 
the  Boiarians,  and  found  them  living  without  the  ecclesias- 
tical order,  not  having  any  bishops  in  the  province,  save  one 
Vivilo,  whom  we  ordained  sometime  before ;  the  presbyters, 
therefore,  whom  thou  foundest  there,  if  it  be  uncertain  by 
whom  they  were  ordained,  whether  by  bishops  or  not,  let 
them  receive  orders  from  their  bishop,  and  so  let  them  dis- 
charge their  office.'  Thus  it  is  plain,  that  before  Vivilo  was 
imposed  on  the  Boiarians  by  pope  Zachary,  that  large  prov- 
ince of  Bavaria  was  under  a  presbyterial  government ;  and 
yet,  it  was  very  large,  and  at  this  day  the  third  part  thereof 
has  its  archbishop,  whom  Strabo  reckons  to  be  inferior  to 
none  in   Germany,  either  in  jurisdiction  or  revenue.     The 

son's  Sum  of  Episc.  Contr.  p.  200 ;  al-  2)  Philostorgius,  Phil.  lib.  ii.  c.  5. 

so  his   Cyp.  Tsot.  p.  494;   Jamieson's  in  Blondel,  p.    103;  and    Stillingfleet 

Hist,  of  the  Culdees,  p.  332  ;  Dr.  Wil-  Iren. ;  and  in  full  also  in  Nat.  Alexand. 

son's  Prim.  Govt.  pp.  150,  172.  p.  137. 

1)  Eccl.   Hist.  cent.  iv.  torn.  ii.  3)  Ayton's  Orig.  Constit.  of  the 

P-  29.  Ch.  pp.  531,  532. 


CHAP.  I.]        AND    BRITISH    CHURCHES    PRESBYTERIAN.  449 

pope  did  indeed  require  a  reordination  of  these  presbyters, 
but  this  is  no  surprise  in  the  seventh  or  eighth  century.' 

Blondel  proves,  also,  that,  in  the  fourth  century,  many 
churches  throughout  the  east,  during  the  persecutions,  consti- 
tuted bishops  by  the  aid  of  their  presbyters,  who  taught  them 
in  the  faith  ;  and  that,  too,  when  other  bishops  were  accessible, 
and  when  there  was  no  imperative  necessity  impelling  them 
to  such  a  course.1 

§  3.     The  prim  Hive  churches  in  Britain  ivere  presbyterian. 

When,  how,  by  whom,  and  to  what  extent,  the  gospel  was 
first  introduced  into  Britain,  is  a  question  to  which  very  dif- 
ferent answers  have  been  given!  The  grounds  upon  which 
the  early  promulgation  of  the  gospel  in  Britain  is  based,  are 
summarily  and  very  ably  presented  by  Mr.  Soames.2 

Dr.  Adam  Clarke  reconciles  the  different  accounts  by  sup- 
posing, that  different  persons  may  have  introduced  the  gospel 
into  different  parts  of  the  island,  as  it  then  existed  under 
several  independent  governments.3  The  evidence  in  favor 
of  the  supposition,  that  the  apostle  Paul  visited  Britain,  or 
that  the  gospel  came  to  Britain  through  his  direct  or  indirect 
instrumentality,  certainly  preponderates  and  gives  to  it  the 
greatest  probability. 4 

1)  See  the  whole  evidence  andar-  son's  Disc,  on  Introd.  of  Christ,  into 
gument  in  Blondel's  Apol.  andasquot-  Britain.  Spelman's  Concilia,  pp.  1 - 
edinNat.  Alex.  Diss.  Eccl.  pp.  139, 140.  30.     Divine  Right  of  Ch.  Govt.p.  267, 

2)  Anglo  Saxon.  Ch.  Introd.  where  Append.  Henry's  Hist,  of  England, 
the  original  authorities  are  given,  pp.  he.  Pictorial  Hist,  of  Engl.  vol.  i.  p. 
1-6.  See  this  subject  discussed  in  Still-  76,  &c.  Masoni  Vind.  Anglic.  Eccl. 
ingfleet's  Origihes  Britannicae.  Col-  Dr.  Clarke,  at  pp.  13- 15,  gives  the  ac- 
lier's  Ecc.  Hist.  Adam  Clarke's  Acct.  count  of  six  British  Synods  in  Coun- 
of  Introd.  of  the  Gosp.  into  Britain,  cils  before  A.  D.  519,  besides  the 
Lond.  1S15.  Fuller's  Ch.  Hist.  Simp-  Councils  of  Aries,  Nice,  and  Arimi- 
son's  Brit.  Eccl.  Hist.  Bingham's  An-  num,  where  British  bishops  were  pres- 
tiq.  B.  ix.  ch.  i.  Hough's  Reply  ent.  An  Hist.  Acct.  of  the  Britannic 
to  Dr.  Wiseman,  p.  47,  &c.  Bur-  Ch.  Lond.  1692.  Vidal's  Mosheim, 
gess's  Tracts  on  the  Origin  and  Inde-  vol.  ii.  pp.  1G-22.  Wake's  Apost. 
pend.  of  the  Brit.  Ch.  Usher's  Re-  Fathers.  Prel.  Disc.  $  26,  p.  67.  Giese- 
ligion  of  the  Anc.  Irish  and  British,  ler,  1,123,  313,  361.  Brooke's  Rel.  Lib. 
and  his  Brit.   Eccl.   Antiq.      Fox  in  vol.  i.  p.  21,  &c. 

Acts  and  Monum.  B.  ii.  ch.  i.    Law-  3)  Account,  &c.  as  above,  p.  9. 

4)  See  Stillingfleet,  Collier,  Clarke,  Henry,  and  Fuller.— We  shall  here 
present  an  outline  of  the  evidence  in  proof  of  the  early  origin,  independence, 
and  protestantism  of  the  British  church. 

Events.  Authorities. 

1.  The  gospel  preached   in  Britain  in    the       1.  Tertullian,  Origen.  Athanasins,  Chrysos- 

earliest  times.  torn,  Amobius. 

2.  Preached  in  Britain  before  the  defeat  of      2.  Gildas. 

Boadicea,  A.  D.  61. 

3.  Preached  among  the    Celtic  nations  (of      3.  Irenseus. 

which  Britain  was  on,-)  by  the  apostles. 

4.  Preached  in  Britain  by  some  of  the  apos-       4.  Eusebius,  Theodoret,  Nicephoru*. 

ties. 

57 


450 


THE    BRITISH    CHURCHES 


[book  III. 


Whatever  doubts  may  becloud  the  period  of  the  first  evan- 
gelization of  Britain,  it  may  be  seriously  maintained,  that  it 
received  the  gospel  before  Rome.  Suaret  avers,  that  it  was 
proclaimed  in  Britain,  from  the  first  rising  of  it.  And  Baro- 
nius,  on  the  authority  cf  some  MSS  in  the  Vatican,  assigns, 
as  the  period  of  the  first  christianization  of  Britain,  the  year 
A.  D.  35,  which  would  be,  at  least,  nine  years  prior  to  the 
organization  of  the  Romish  church.1  Britain,  then,  did  not 
receive  the  gospel,  primarily,  through  any  agency  of  Rome. 
This  is  most  certain,  from  the  fact,  that  her  ecclesiastical  cus- 
toms were  similar  to  those  of  the  oriental  churches,  and  dif- 
ferent from  those  of  the  Roman  church ;  and  that,  too,  not 
only  in  the  administration  of  baptism,  but  also  as  it  regards 
the  observance  of  Easter,  on  which  these  churches  dissent- 
ed so  violently.2  It  is,  therefore,  manifestly  absurd  to  trace 
up  to  Rome,  either  the  authority,  the  doctrine,  or  the  minis- 
terial succession,  of  the  British  churches.  They  were,  for  the 
first  six  hundred  years,  independent  of  the  jurisdiction  of 
Rome,  as  appears,  not  only  from  the  continuance   of  their 


5.  Preached  in  Spain  by  St.  Paul. 

6.  Preached  in  the   western  parts  by  St. 

Paul. 

7.  Preached  in  the  extremity  of  the  AVest  by 

St.  Paul. 

8.  Britain  included   in  the  West,  and    the 

boundary  of  the  gospel  to  the  West. 

9.  Preached  in  the  islands   that  lie  in  the 

ocean,  by  St.  Paul. 
10.  Preached  in  Britain,  by  St.  Paul. 


5.    Atlianasius,  Cyril,  Epiphanius,  Jerome, 
Chrysostom,  Theodoret,  Gregorius,  M. 
C.  Jerome. 

7.  Clement  Romanus. 

S.  Catullus,  Eusebius,   Jerome,    Arnobius, 

Theodoret,  Nicephorus. 
9.  Jerome,  Theodoret. 

10.  Venantius,  Fortunatus,  Sophronius. 


1.  St.  Paul  sent  to  Rome  in  the  second  year 

of  Nero.    (A.  D.  56.) 

2.  Pomponia  Graecina,  and  Claudia  Rufina, 

two  British  ladies  at  Rome,  at  that  time. 

3.  Pomponia  Graecina  accused  of  foreign  su- 

perstition.   (A.  D.  57.) 

4.  Caractacus's    family  sent  to   Rome.    (A. 

D.  51.) 

5.  Caractacus's  family  returned  to  Britain  af- 

ter seven  vears'  detention  at  Rome.    (A. 
D.  58  or  59.) 

6.  St.  Paul's  first  imprisonment  expired.   (A. 

D.58  or  59.) 

7.  Caractacus's  father  introduced  Christianity 

into  Britain. 
See  Bishop  Burgess's  Tracts. 

1)  See  Bull's  Corruptions  of  the 
Church  of  Rome,  p.  227.  This  posi- 
tion is  very  largely  proved  by  bishop 
Burgess,  in  his  Tracts  on  the  Origin 
and  Indep.  of  the  Anct.  Brit.  Ch.  at 
pp.  21  -  54.  He  adduces  testimonies 
from  each  of  the  first  six  centuries, 
pp.  47  -  52,  and    also    from    Parker, 


Confirmation  of  Gildas,s  testimony. 
III. 


1.  Eusebius,  Jerome,  Bede,  Frecalphus,  Ivo, 

Platina,  Magdeburgici,  Petavius,  Scalig- 
ger,  Capellus,  Simson,  Stillingfleet. 

2.  Tacitus.  Martial. 

3.  Tacitus. 

4.  Tacitus. 

5.  British  Triads  compared  with  Tacitus  in 

No.  4. 

6.  Acts  of  the  Apostles  28:  30,  compared  with 

Eusebius.  Jerome,  &c.     No.  1. 

7.  British  Triads. 


Camden,  Usher,  Stillingfleet,  Cave, 
Gibson,  Nelson,  Collier,  Godwin,  Ra- 
pin,  Bingham,  Stanhope,  Warner, 
Trapp,  &c.  among  the  moderns.  See 
also  p.  55.  He  again  dwells  on  the 
subject  at  pp.  109-120,  and  at  127. 
2)  Do.  do.  p.  227,  228. 


CHAP. 


I.]  WERE    PRE8BYTERIAN.  451 


peculiar  customs,  but  also  from  the  imcmimotis  testimony  of 
historians.1  The  churches  of  Britain,  indeed,  have  never 
yet  been  canonical///  under  the  jurisdiction  of  the  bishop  of 
Rome.- 

The  early  history  of  the  British  churches  being  thus  ob- 
scure, it  is  not  easy  to  fix  the  period  at  which  regular 
churches  were  first  formed.3  That  they  were  constituted, 
however,  '  from  a  remote  period,'4  and  as  soon  as  Christianity 
had  made  any  progress,  cannot  be  doubted.5  And  that  they 
were,  in  their  character,  presbyterian  and  not  prelatical,  will  ap- 
pear to  be  equally  certain.  Romanists,  in  order  to  secure  their 
ends,  are  driven  to  the  hazardous  attempt  of  denying  all  the 
evidence  in  the  case,  as  to  any  early  ehristianization  of  Brit- 
ain ;  while  prelatists  have  invented  equally  preposterous 
schemes  for  supplying  it  with  some  kind  of  prelacy.  But 
both  have  labored  in  vain,  since  facts  are  stubborn  things,  and 
will  neither  lie  nor  die.  As  to  the  opinion  of  Romanists, 
nothing  can  be  more  unwarrantable.  Austin,  when  he  landed 
on  the  shores  of  Britain,  found  ministers  and  churches 
already  among  the  inhabitants,  and  that  they  had  existed 
from  that  time  up  till  near  the  days  of  the  apostles,  is  certified 
by  testimony  in  each  successive  century.0  Stillinglleet,  on 
the  other  hand,  as  advocate  for  prelatists,  in  his  Antiquities 
of  the  British  Churches,  is  forced  to  acknowledge,  that  no 
lineal  succession  of  bishops  can  be  pretended  in  the  ancient 
British  churches.  '  We  cannot,'  he  says,7  'deduce  a  lineal 
succession  of  bishops,  as  they  could  in  other  churches,  where 
writings  were  preserved.  By  the  loss  of  records  of  the 
British  churches,  we  cannot  draw  down  the  succession  of 
bishops  from  the  apostles'  time.'8  '  Although,  therefore,' 
adds  this  most  modest  of  all  writers,  when  prelacy  is  in 
danger,  'by  the  loss  of  records  of  the  British  churches,  we 
cannot  draw  down  the  succession  of  bishops  from  the  apos- 
tles's  time,  (for  that  of  the  bishops  of  London,  by  Jocelin,  of 
Furnes,  is  not  worth  mentioning,)  yet  we  have  great  reason 
\o  presume  such  a  succession.'9 

Similar  is  the  manifest  awkwardness  with  which  Mr.  Pal- 
mer, by  the  aid  of  that  sophistry,  in  the  use  of  which  he  is 

1)  Ibid,  p.  23,  and  Edgars  Varia-  urged  by  Bishop  Burgess,  in  Tracts, 
tions  of  Popery,  p.  103.  as  above,  p.  66. 

2)  See  Origin   of   the   Common  6)  See  Burgess's  Tracts,  as  above, 
Prayer  Book,  p.  49.  p.  127,  \c.  where  the  proof  in  refer- 

3)  Palmer's  Orig.  Lit.  vol.  i.  176.  ence  to  each  of  these  periods  is  dwelt 

4)  Ibid,  p.  180.  on. 

5)  This    is    fully   admitted    and  7)  FoL  ed.pp.  77,  81, 83. 

S)  Irenicum.  9)  [bid,  p.  77. 


452  THE    BRITISH    CHURCHES  [BOOK  III. 

such  an  adept,  has  recently  endeavored  to  obscure  the  plainest 
of  facts.1  Usher,  in  his  great  work,  De  Britanicarum  Eccle- 
siarum  Primordiis,  only  gives  the  catalogue  of  bishops  from 
A.  D.  433,2  nor  does  he  tell  us  whether,  even  then,  they  were 
properly  to  be  regarded  as  prelatical  or  parochial,  that  is, 
presbyterian  bishops,  which  is  a  very  important  question. 
That  there  were  bishops  in  Britain  from  its  first  conversion, 
we  do  not  doubt,  but  that  they  were  any  other  than  presby- 
terian pastors,  we  have,  as  yet,  seen  no  reasonable  ground  for 
believing.  And  yet,  upon  the  single  fact,  that  there  were  in 
the  British  churches,  bishops,  and  that  in  the  fourth  century 
these  appeared  in  councils,  does  Mr.  Ledwich  demonstrate 
their  original  prelacy  !!  3  So  utterly  ignorant  are  prelatists  of 
the  very  first  principles  of  our  ecclesiastical  polity,  or  of  the 
truth,  that  both  in  scripture  and  in  presbyterianism,  bishop 
means  pastor,  presbyter,  or  minister.4 

To  our  minds  the  presumption  is  entirely  the  other  way, 
that  is,  against  the  prelatic  and  in  favor  of  the  presbyterian 
polity  of  the  primitive  British  churches.  This  presumption 
we  build,  in  the  first  place,  upon  the  acknowledged  proba- 
bility, that  they  were  established  by  the  apostle  Paul.  Now, 
it  has  been  already  shown,  that  Paul  was,  avowedly,  a  pres- 
byter; that  he  was  ordained  as  an  example  to  all  future  ages, 
by  a  presbytery  ;  that  he  himself  ordained  presbyters,  and,  as 
as  far  we  know,  only  presbyters,  in  all  the  churches  organized 
by  him  ;  that  he  expressly  delegated  to  the  Ephesian  presby- 
ters the  entire  rule,  government,  and  jurisdiction  of  the  epis- 
copate ;  that  he  sanctioned  the  ordination  of  Timothy  by  a 
presbytery ;  and  that  we  are,  therefore,  required  to  believe, 
that,  in  constituting  a  church  in  Britain,  he  would  not  give  to 
it  a  prelacy,  when,  to  the  Roman,  Ephesian,  Philippian,  and 
other  churches,  he  had  given  only  the  simpler  model  of  a 
presbytery.  Another  ground  on  which  we  rest  this  pre- 
sumption, is  the  connection  between  the  British  and  Gallic 
churches.  It  was  from  Gaul  the  christian  religion  first  spread 
into  Britain.5  The  forms,  doctrines,  and  opinions,  of  the 
British  and  the  Gallic  churches  were  similar  wherein  they 
were  both   discordant  with   those   of  the    Romish   church.6 

1)  On  the  church,  vol.  ii.  p.  180.  6)  Ledwich's  Antiq.pv112.  Jamie- 

2)  See   also    Broughton's     Eccl.  son's  Hist,  of  Culdees,  p.  214.  Usher's 
Diet.  fol.  i.  161.  Relig.  of  the  Anc.  Irish  and  Brit.  ch. 

3)  Antiq.  of  Ireland,  p.  54,  57.  iv.     At  the   Synod  of  Streoneshalch, 

4)  See  also  Prynne's  Eng.  Prel.  (now  Whitby,)  A.  D.  6G2,  bishop  Cole- 
vol,  ii.  p.  499,  &c.  man,  and  the   Culdee  presbyters,  rea- 

5)  Mosheim,  Eccl.  Hist.  B.  i.  cent,  soned  upon  the  equal  authority  of  the 
ii.  P.  i.  c.  1,  vol.  i.  121.  apostle  John,    while   the    Romanists 

urged  that  of  Peter.  (See  Jamieson,  pp. 


CHAP.   I.]  WERE    PRESBYTERIAN.  453 

Now  that,  in  the  first  ages,  prelacy  was  unknown  to  the 
Gallic  churches,  is  very  clear,  as  we  have  already  proved. 
And,  therefor^,  the  strong  presumption  is,  that  the  polity  of 
the  British  churches,  also,  was  not  prelatic.  A  third  ground 
on  which  we  rest  this  presumption  is,  the  entire  absence  of 
any  proof  of  a  prelatical  succession,  which  is,  nevertheless, 
essential  to  the  establishment  of  the  prelatical  character  of  the 
early  British  churches.  On  this  point  Stillingfleet,  Collier, 
and  Palmer,  are  reluctantly  candid.  l  The  first  traces  of  bish- 
ops in  Britain  are  found  in  the  fourth  century,  2  when  three 
were  present  at.  the  Council  of  Aries,  held  A.  D.  314.  But 
that  these  were  diocesan  prelates,  or  of  the  same  essential 
character  as  modern  prelates,  there  is  no  evidence  whatever. 
As  to  their  sitting  in  synod,  we  know,  that  even  presbyters 
were  anciently  entitled  to  this  privilege,  until  ejected  by  the 
encroaching  despotism  of  the  prelates ;  and,  after  this  period 
Columba,  who  was  but  a  presbyter,  when  he  appeared  as 
the  representative  of  the  clergy  in  Albanian  Scotia,  was 
received  with  the  greatest  attention  and  respect.  3 

A  fourth  argument  for  the  presbyterian  polity  of  the  primi- 
tive British  Christianity,  is  deducible  from  the  fact,  that  on  the 
arrival  of  Austin  the  Monk,  the  ancient  clergy  who  had  re- 
tired to  "Wales  on  the  Saxon  invasion,  refused  to  submit  to 
the  authority  of  the  pope,  and  endured,  many  of  them,  death, 
rather  than  abandon  their  liberty,  and  their  pure  and  uncor- 
rupted  faith.  It  is  evident,  from  the  testimony  of  the  old 
Chronicle,4  quoted  by  bishop  Davies  in  his  letter  to  arch- 
bishop Parker,  that  the  Britons  not  only  rejected  the  author- 
ity of  Austin,  but  the  doctrines  and  usages  of  his  church. 
The  Chronicle  says,  that  they  would  hold  no  communication 
with  the  Saxons,  when  converted  by  Austin,  because  '  they 
corrupted  with  superstition,  images,  and  idolatry,  the  true 
religion  of  Christ.'  The  length  to  which  they  carried  their 
protestantism  is  very  remarkable.  '  The  Britons,'  says  Bede, 
'  would  no  more  communicate  with  the  anglo-Saxons  than 
with  pagans.'  The  Irish  had  exactly  the  same  sentiments. 
'  The  British  priests,  that  is,  presbyters,'  complains  Aldhelm, 
'  puffed  up  with  a  conceit  of  their  own  purity,  do  exceed- 
ingly abhor  communion  with  us,  insomuch  that  they  neither 

222,  223,   and    Stuart's    Hist,  of  Ar-  1)  See   Collier's  Eccl.  Hist.  B.  i. 

magh,  App.   xiii.  p.   627.)     See    also  cent.  iv.  fol.  ed.  vol.  i.  p.  26. 

Palmer's  Origines    Liturgicas,   vol.   i.  2)   Gieseler's  Eccl.    Hist.  vol.   i. 

pp.  1  14.  153,  1")7.  170,  ISO,  &c.     Hen-  p.  123,  §  56. 

ry's  Britain,  vol.  i. 201.     Mackintosh's  3)  Adam  vita  Columb.  in  Stuart, 

Hist,  of    England,  and    Stillingfleet's  p.  624. 

Antiq.  of  the^Brit.  Ch.  p.  135.  4)  Burgess's  Tracts,  p.  102. 


454  THE    BRITISH    CHURCHES  [BOOK  III. 

will  join  in  prayers  with  us  in  the  church,  nor  in  communion, 
nor  will  they  enter  into  society  with  us  at  table  ;  the  frag- 
ments we  leave  after  refection,  they  throw  to  the  dogs.  The 
cups,  also,  out  of  which  we  have  drank,  they  will  not  use 
until  they  have  cleansed  them  with  sand  and  ashes.  They 
refuse  all  civil  salutations,  and  will  not  give  us  the  kiss  of 
pious  fraternity.  Moreover,  if  any  of  us  go  to  take  an  abode 
among  them,  they  will  not  vouchsafe  to  admit  us,  till  we  are 
compelled  to  spend  forty  days  in  penance.'1  The  British 
christians,  when  the  customs  of  Rome  were  made  known  to 
them,  found  them  to  be  so  contrary  to  their  own  simple  and 
primitive  rites,  that  when  they  met  Augustine  at  the  cele- 
brated conference  with  him,  Dinoth  the  abbot  of  Bangor,  and 
who  was,  therefore,  a  presbyter,  in  the  name  of  his  brethren 
entered  a  solemn  protest,  and  declared  themselves  indepen- 
dent of  all  Romish  interference.  '  The  British  churches,' 
said  he,2  'owe  the  deference  of  brotherly  kindness  and  char- 
ity to  the  pope  of  Rome,  and  to  all  christians.  But  other 
obedience  than  this,  they  did  not  know  to  be  due  to  him 
whom  they  called  pope  ;  and  for  their  parts,  they  were  under 
the  jurisdiction  of  the  bishop,  (that  is,  presbyter,)  of  Caer- 
leon  upon  Usk,  who,  under  God,  was  their  spiritual  overseer 
and  director.  At  a  later  period,  in  the  seventh  century,  the 
king  and  clergy  of  Northumberland,3  treated  with  contempt 
the  papal  mandate  to  restore  his  deposed  bishop.'  Now  be 
it  remembered,  that  one  of  the  very  articles  for  which  these 
British  churches  declared  themselves  protestant  was,  '  the 
multiplication  of  bishops,'  since,  on  their  plan,  every  church 
had  its  own  bishop,  whether  in  the  country  or  in  cities.'4 
A  still  further  source  of  presumptive  proof  against  the  sup- 
posed prelatic  constitution  of  the  British  churches  is  found  in 
the  fact,  that  of  the  six  nations  or  tribes  into  which,  in  the 
sixth  century,  Britain  was  divided,  at  least  five  of  them  re- 
ceived their  knowledge  of  the  gospel  and  its  institutions  from 
the  Culdees,  or  the  Scotch-Irish  christians,  or  from  Gaul. 
This  was  the  case  as  it  regards  the  Scots  or  Irish  ;  the  Picts  ; 
the  Angles;  the  Saxons,  and  the  Jutes.5  Their  polity  must 
have  been  the  same,  therefore,  as  that  found  at  the  same  time 
among  the  Culdees,  which  we  shall  prove  was  essentially 
presbyterian.     Gildas  also,  in  the  sixth  century,  as  Stilling- 

1)  Ledwich's  Antiq.  p.  63.  4)    Ledwich's  Antiq.  of  Ireland, 

2)  Collier's  Eccl.  Hist,  of  Britain,    pp.  56,  84,  &c. 

vol.  i.  p.  178,  ed.  1840.  5)  See  Origin  and  Compilation  of 

3)  Spelman's  Concilia,  i.  pp.  162,    the  Prayer  Book,  pp.  128-132. 
203,  in  Orig.  of  Com.  Pr.  B.  p.  76. 


CHAP.  I.]  WERE    PRESBYTERIAN.  455 

fleet  teaches,  ascribes  to  all  ministers  a  succession,  even 
to  St.  Peter.  He  calls  the  British  churches1  Sedem  Petri,  the 
see  of  St.  Peter.  '  I  confess,'  says  Usher,  '  Gildas  hath  these 
words,  but  quite  in  another  sense  [than  the  Romish] ;  for  in 
the  beginning  of  his  invective  against  the  clergy,  among  other 
things  he  charges  them,  that  they  did  sedem  Petri  apostoli 
immnndis  pedibus  itsurpare.  Doth  he  mean,  that  they  de- 
filed St.  Peter's  chair  at  Rome  ?  No,  certainly  ;  but  he  takes 
St.  Peter's  chair  for  that  which  all  the  clergy  possessed,  and 
implies  in  it  no  more  than  their  ecclesiastical  function  ;  and 
so  he  opposes  it  to  the  chair  of  Judas,  into  which,  he  saith, 
such  wicked  men  fell.' 

Gildas,  therefore,  may  be  regarded  in  accordance  with  the 
views  of  the  Culdees,  as  ascribing  apostolical  succession  to 
all  true  ministers  of  Christ. 

That  the  forms  and  orders  of  the  Romish  hierarchy  came 
afterwards  to  be  established  in  Britain,  no  one  disputes.  But 
even  then  the  sentiments  derived  from  a  recollection  of  her 
primitive  presbyterianism  continued  to  prevail.  Of  this  we 
have  a  remarkable  proof.  Amongst  the  canons  and  de- 
crees of  the  British  and  Anglo-Saxon  churches,  are  found 
the  canons  of  Elfric  to  bishop  Wulfin.  Howell  thinks  they 
were  both  bishops.  Fox,  the  Matyrologist,  says,  'that  Elfric 
is  supposed  by  Capgrave,  and  William  of  Malmsbury,  to 
have  been  archbishop  of  Canterbury,  about  996  ;  and  Wul- 
finus,  or  Wulfin,  to  have  been  bishop  of  Scyrbune  or  Sher- 
born.8  Ernie's  two  epistles,  in  the  Saxon  canons  and  consti- 
tutions, were  given  by  Wulfstane,  bishop  of  Worcester,  as  a 
gnat  jewel  to  the  church  of  Worcester.3  In  the  tenth  canon, 
Elfric  numbers  seven  decrees,  or  orders,  as  follows:  1.  Osll- 
iarras,  or  doorkeeper;  2.  Reader;  3.  Exorcist;  4.  Alolyth  ; 
5.  Sub-deacon ;  6.  Deacon ;  7.  Presbyter?  These  are  all 
the  orders  he  mentions  in  the  church.  He  does  not  mention 
the  bishops  as  either  degree  or  order.  But,  under  the  order  of 
presbyter,  he  says,  'there  is  no  more  difference  between  the 
mass-presbyter  and  the  bishop,  than  this,  that  the  bishop  is 
appointed  to  confer  ordinations,  and  to  sec  to  the  execution  of 
the  laws  of  God,  which,  if  every  presbyter  should  do  it,  would 
be  committed  to  too  many.  Both,  indeed,  are  one  and  the 
same   order,  although  the  part  of  the  bishop  is  the  more 

1)  Antiq.  of  the  Br.  Ch.  fol.  ed.  3)  Fox's  Acts  and  Monuments, 
p-  363.                                                            vol.  ii.  p.  376,  fol.  ed.  London,  16S4. 

2)  Powell,  on  the  Ap.  Succ.  pp. 
44,  45. 


456  THE    BRITISH    CHURCHES  [BOOK  III. 

honorable.1  In  further  proof  of  this  point,  we  refer  to  the 
declarations  made  by  Colman,  bishop  of  Lindisfern,  at  a 
conference  held  at  Whitby,  in  A.  D.  661,  to  determine 
whether  the  ancient  or  the  Romish  customs  should  be  re- 
tained. '  The  easter  I  keep,'  said  Colman,2  '  I  received  from 
my  presbyters,  who  sent  me  bishop  hither;  the  which  all 
our  forefathers,  men  beloved  of  God,  are  known  to  have  kept 
after  the  same  manner ;  and  that  the  same  may  not  seem  to 
any  contemptible,  or  worthy  to  be  rejected,  it  is  the  same 
which  St.  John  the  Evangelist,  and  the  churches  over  which 
he  presided,  observed.' 

In  further  confirmation  of  these  views,  we  might  adduce 
the  testimony  of  many  writers.  That  of  Coelus  Sedulius  Sco- 
tus,  about  390,  has  been  given,  and  is  very  strong.  '  To  him,' 
says  Prynne,3  '  I  might  annex  our  famous  Gildas,  in  his  Acris 
Correptio  Cleri  Ang-lice,  our  venerable  Beda,  in  his  Acta 
Apostolorum,  cap.  20,  torn.  v.  col.  657,  and  Alcniniis,  de  divinus 
officiis,  cap.  35,  36,  epistola  108,  ad  Sparatum,  and  Comment, 
in  Evang.  Joannis,  1.  5  to  25,  col.  547-549,  who  main- 
tain the  self-same  doctrine  of  the  parity  of  bishops  and  pres- 
byters; declaim  much  against  the  pride,  lordliness,  ambition, 
domineering  power,  and  other  vices  of  prelates  ;  and  con- 
clude, that  a  bishopric  is  nomen  operis,  non  honoris;  a  name 
of  labor,  not  of  honor ;  a  work,  not  a  dignity ;  a  toil,  not  a 
delight.  But  I  rather  pass  to  Anselm,  archbishop  of  Can- 
terbury, a  man  without  exception,  and  the  greatest  scholar  in 
his  age,  who,  near  six  hundred  years  since,  in  his  Enarration 
on  the  Epistle  to  the  Philippians,  cap.  1,  ver.  1,  resolves  thus. 
'  With  the  bishops,  that  is,  with  the  presbyters  and  deacons, 

for  he  hath  put  bishops  for  elders,  after  his  custom 

It  is  therefore  manifest,  by  apostolic  institution,  that 
all  presbyters  are  bishops,  albeit  now  those  greater  ones 
have  obtained  that  title.  For,  a  bishop  is  called  an  overseer ; 
and  every  presbyter  ought  to  attend  the  cure  over  the  flock 
committed  to  him.'  In  his  commentary  on  the  first  chapter 
of  Titus,  verses  5,  7,  he  hath  the  self-same  words  that  Hierome 
and  Sedulius  used  before  him,  concluding  from  Acts  20  : 
17,  28,  and  Phil.  1 :  1,  that,  among  the  ancients,  presby- 
ters WERE  THE  VERY    SAME    THAT    BISHOPS    WERE.       '  I  read, 

also,'  says  Mr.  Prynne,4  'in  our  rare  historian,  Matthew  Paris, 
Thomas  Wfalsingham,   Ypodigma  Neustriae,  Anno  1166,  p. 

1)   Canons,  &c.  a   Laur.  Howel,  2)  Bede,  1.  3,  c.  25 ;  Ledwich,  55. 

A.  M.  pp.  66,  67,  fol.  Londoni,   1708;  3)  In  his  English  Lordly  Prelacy, 

Spelmani,    Concil.   torn.   i.  576,  586  ;  vol.  ii.  pp.  314,  31^5. 

Prynne's  English  Prelacy,  vol.  ii.  316.  4)  English  Prelacy,  2,  256. 


CHAP.   I.]  WERE    PRESBYTERIAN.  457 

36 ;  and  John  Bale,  centur.  2,  Script.  Britan.§  96,  97,  pp.  206, 
207.  That  in  the  year  of  our  Lord,  1166,  certain  sowers 
abroad  of  wicked  doctrine  at  Oxford,  were  brought  into 
judgment  before  the  king,  and  the  bishops  of  the  kingdom, 
who,  being  devious  from  the  catholique  faith,  and  overcome 
in  trial,  they  were  stigmatized  in  the  face,  and  then  banished 
out  of  the  kingdom.  What  this  wicked  opinion  was,  John 
Bale,  out  of  Guido  Perpinianus  de  Heresibus  relates,  saying, 
that  those  men  were  certain  Waldenses,  who  taught,  that  the 
church  of  Rome  was  the  whore  of  Babylon,  and  the  barren 
fig-tree,  whom  Christ  himself  had  long  ago  accursed ;  and, 
moreover,  that  men  are  not  to  obey  the  pope  and  bishops, 
and  that  orders,  (to  wit,  popish  orders,)  are  the  characters  of 
the  great  beast.' 

Of  our  position  there  is  still  further  evidence  in  the  fact, 
that  chorepiscopi,  or  rural  bishops,  were  established  in  the 
British  churches ;  since  an  old  writer  informs  us  there  was 
one  at  Canterbury,  who  dwelt  in  the  church  of  St.  Martin, 
without  Canterbury.1  Rural  bishops  were,  therefore,  we 
may  presume,  placed  in  every  church  ;  and  thus  would  the 
parochial  episcopacy,  that  is,  presbyterianism,  be  perpetuated. 

We  shall  further  adduce  the  evidence  of  Wickliffe,  the 
morning  star  of  the  reformation,  the  leader  of  his  age,  the 
glory  of  his  country,  and  the  benefactor  of  the  world.  And 
here  it  is  with  honest  pride  we  reveal  the  fact,  that  while  Huss 
and  Jerome  of  Prague  lit  their  torches  at  the  fire  kindled  by 
the  English  reformer,  Wickliffe  was  himself  indebted  for 
the  quickening  of  his  own  mighty  spirit  to  Fitz  Ralph,  oth- 
erwise called  Armachanus,  his  great  Irish  predecessor.  So 
that  after  all,  Ireland,  which  was  in  primitive  ages  the  island 
of  saints,  and  the  home  of  presbyterianism,  became  the  day- 
spring  to  that  glorious  morning,  which,  after  a  night  of  inter- 
vening darkness,  shone  upon  the  world.  Fitz  Ralph  was 
archbishop  of  Armagh  from  1347  to  1359.  He  was  the  most 
vigorous  opponent  of  the  Mendicants;  maintained  the  suffi- 
ciency of  the  scriptures  for  all  purposes  of  faith  and  duty, 
proclaimed  the  original  truth,  that  '  if  all  the  prelates  in  the 
world  were  dead,  presbyters  could  still  ordain,'  and  was  honored 
with  the  charge  of  heresy,  and  the  endurance  of  much  Rom- 
ish persecution.  Bellarmine  states,  that  Wickliffe  derived 
from  the  archbishop's  writings  several  of  his  alleged  errors. 
That  he  was  acquainted  with  his  writings  is  certain,  and  that, 
in   the   very  year   Armachanus  died,  Wickliffe  took  up  the 

1)   Ger.  Dorob.  Hist.  Pontif.  ecc.  Cant.  Ledwich,  83 
58 


458  THE    BRITISH    CHURCHES  [BOOK   III. 

same  controversy  in  England,  which  he  had  pursued  in  Ire- 
land, and  by  which  he  was  led  on  to  his  ultimate  discovery 
of  the  whole  truth,  is  also  a  well-ascertained  fact.1 

WicklifTe  spent  a  long  and  laborious  life  in  the  mainte- 
jnance  and  diffusion  of  the  principles  of  presbyterianism, 
'considering  that  term,  as  we  may  well  do,  as  including  the 
true  principles  of  religious  liberty,  as  well  as  of  ecclesiastical 
parity.2  The  origin  of  the  distinctions  which  had  obtained 
among  the  secular  clergy,  is  thus  given;3  'by  the  ordi- 
nance of  Christ,  priests  and  bishops  are  all  one.  But 
afterwards,  the  emperor  divided  them,  and  made  bishops 
lords,  and  priests  their  servants ;  and  this  was  the  cause  of 
envy,  and  quenched  much  charity.'  '  I  boldly  assert  one 
thing,  namely,  that  in  the  primitive  church,  or  in  the  time  of 
Paul,  two  orders  of  the  clergy  were  sufficient,  that  is,  a  priest 
and  a  deacon.  In  like  manner  I  affirm,  that  in  the  time  of 
Paul,  presbyter  and  bishop  were  names  of  the  same  office. 
This  appears  from  the  third  chapter  of  the  first  Epistle  to 
Timothy,  and  in  the  first  chapter  of  the  Epistle  to  Titus.  And 
the  same  is  testified  by  that  profound  theologian,  Jerome.' 
'  From  the  faith  of  the  scriptures,  it  seems  to  me  to  be  suffi- 
cient, that  there  should  be  presbyters  and  deacons  holding 
that  state  and  office  which  Christ  has  imposed  on  them,  since 
it  appears  certain,  that  these  degrees  and  orders  have  their 
origin  in  the  pride  of  Caesar.  If,  indeed,  they  were  neces- 
sary to  the  church,  Christ  and  his  apostles  would  not  have 
been  silent  respecting  them,  as  those  impiously  pretend,  who 
magnify  the  papal  laws  above  those  of  Christ.' 

Nor  were  these  the  sentiments  of  WicklifTe  alone.  They 
were  the  opinions  of  a  vast  number  in  his  own  age, and  they 
continued  to  impregnate  the  British  nation,  until  they  pre- 
pared the  way  both  in  Scotland  and  in  England,  for  the  re- 
formation. They  constituted  the  ground  of  accusation 
against  William  Swinderby,  a  martyr  under  Richard  the 
Second;4  and  against  Walter  Bute,  Nicholas  Hereford, 
Philip  Reppington,  and  John  Ashton,  and  generally  against 
all  the  Wickliffeites.5  In  1382,  according  to  Knighton,  ev- 
ery second  man  in  the  kingdom  was  of  WicklifTe' s  sect.6 
A  concession  to  the  same  effect   is  made   by  Sir  Thomas 

1)  Dr.  ReicTs  Hist,  of  Presb.  Ch.     ments,  pp.431  -434,  ed.  1610,  and  vol. 
in  Ireland,  vol.  i.  p.  7.  i.  pp.  609,  615-617.   619,  ed.  ult.  in 

2)  Vaujjhan's    Life,   vol.   ii.    pp.     Prynne,  p.  329. 

274-276.  5)  Ibid,  pp.  622,  642,  653.    In  ibid, 

3)  Vaughan's  Life  of,  vol.  ii.  pp.     p.  331. 

274-276.  6)  De  eventibus  Angliee  ad  Ann. 

4)  See    Fox,    Acts    and    Monu-     Vaughan,  2,  150. 


CHAP.    T.J  WERE    PRESBYTERIAN.  459 

More.'  The  seed  was  then  sown,  from  which  sprung  the 
harvest  of  the  reformation,  or,  to  use  Knighton's  simile,  the 
root  was  then  planted,  from  which  started  those  saplings, 
which  multiplied  and  filled  every  place  within  the  compass 
of  the  land.  The  harrow  of  persecution,  by  which  the  soil 
of  the  English  church  was  so  relentlessly  torn  up  from  the 
year  1380  to  the  year  1431,  caused  the  seed  to  shoot  up  the 
more  vigorously,  so  that,  even  in  1422,  '  the  Wickliffeites  in 
England  were  grown  to  be  so  many,  that  they  could  not  be 
suppressed  without  an  army.' a  Lord  Cobham,  who  was 
hanged  and  burned,  A.  D.  1417,  when  examined,  spoke  of  the 
church  having  received  '  the  venom  of  Judas.'  The  arch 
bishop  inquired,3  what  that  venom  meant,  and  the  answer 
was, '  your  possessions  and  lordships.'  These  things  are  said 
to  have  made  '  Rome  the  very  nest  of  antichrist,  out  of  which 
come  all  the  disciples  of  antichrist,  of  whom  prelates,  priests, 
and  monks,  are  the  body,  and  these  friars  the  tail.  Priests 
and  deacons,  for  the  preaching  of  God's  word  and  the  admin- 
istering of  sacraments,  with  provision  for  the  poor,  are, 
indeed,  grounded  on  God's  law,  but  these  other  sects  have 
no  manner  of  support  thence,  as  far  as  I  have  read.'  About 
the  year  1457,  Reynold  Peacocke,  also  bishop  of  Chichester, 
preached  at  St.  Paul's  Cross,4  that  the  office  of  a  christian 
prelate  chiefly  above  all  other  things,  is,  to  preach  the  word 
of  God ;  that  the  riches  of  bishops  by  inheritance  are  the 
goods  of  the  poor;  that  spiritual  persons,  by  God's  law,  ought 
to  have  no  temporal  possessions.  And,  moreover,  he  wrote  a 
book,  De  Ministrorum  ^Equalitate,  wherein  he  maintained 
Wicklifte's  opinion  of  the  equality  of  ministers  and  bishops; 
for  which,  and  other  articles,  he  was  accused  and  convicted 
of  heresy. 

The  original  constitution  of  the  British  churches  was, 
therefore,  presbyterian.  And  Augustine,  in  enforcing  upon 
them  the  corruptions  and  fooleries  of  the  Romish  church,  as 
the  centuriators  express  it,  eas  ecclesias  mag-is  deformavit 
quam  recte  instihiit;  rather  deformed  than  reformed  them. 
But  more  than  this.  It  is  easy  to  prove,  that  all  the  orders^ 
powers,  jurisdiction,  and  ecclesiastical  claims  founded,  as  are 
those  of  the  English  prelatical  and  Romish  churches,  upon 
the  acts  of  Augustine  and  his  successors,  are  uncanonical, 
irregular,  and  void,  both  in  the  judgment  of  God  and  of  the 

1)  Vaughan,  2,  155.  4)   Fox,  Acts  and  Monum.  vol.  i 

2)  So  wrote  the  archbishop  of  pp.  929,  930.  See  also  several  other 
Canterbury  to  Pope  Martin  Clarke,  authorities  siven  in  Prynne's  English 
ch-  v-  Prelacv,  2.  p.  346. 

n   3)  Vaughan's   Life  of  Wickliffe, 
2,  372. 


460  THE    PRIMITIVE    IRISH    CHURCHES  [BOOK   III. 

canon  law.  For,  since  the  British  church  was  a  primitive 
church,  deriving  its  orders  from  the  eastern,  and  not  from  the 
western  church,  and  since  it  was,  therefore,  protected  in  its 
liberties  by  many  express  canons,  Augustine,  or  pope  Greg- 
ory, or  the  Romish  church,  could  possess  no  powers,  nor  ex- 
ercise any  functions,  in  this  country.  The  canons  also  limit 
the  authority  of  every  bishop  to  his  own  diocese,  and  debar 
them  the  exercise  of  any  function  that  pertains  to  another 
bishop.1  Gregory,  therefore,  had  no  more  jurisdiction  over 
the  British  bishops,  than  the  British  bishops  had  over  him.2 
It  is  thus  apparent,  that  Augustine  had  no  canonical  mission 
to  England,  and  it  is  also  demonstrable,  that  he  had  no  canon- 
ical consecration  within  it.  As  to  his  consecration,  it  remains 
a  matter  of  great  uncertainty,  whether  he  was  consecrated  at 
Aries,  or  in  Germany;  but  in  either  case,  the  bishops  of 
these  countries  could  have  no  canonical  jurisdiction  in  Eng- 
land ;  and,  therefore,  they  could  impart  none.  And  hence 
it  follows,  that  Augustine's  consecration,  and  all  his  subse- 
quent acts,  together  with  all  the  orders  of  our  Anglican  and 
Scottican  prelatists  were,  and  are,  null  and  void.  This  con- 
clusion is  further  enforced  by  the  fact,  that  Augustine,  con- 
trary to  all  canonical  rule,  ordained  other  bishops  alone, 
while  the  canons  require  the  cooperation  of  three.3  Finally, 
even  could  these  invalidities  be  removed,  it  will  be  in  evidence 
before  the  reader,  that  the  English  orders  were,  at  a  period 
subsequent  to  the  time  of  Augustine,  derived  from  Scottish 
and  Irish  presbyters,  and  that  the  whole  chain  of  the  Angli- 
can prelatical  succession  hangs  by  the  nail  of  the  original 
British  presbyterianism.4 

§  4.     The  primitive  churches  in  Ire/and  were  presbyterian. 

In  entering  upon  an  exposition  of  the  true  character  of  the 
primitive  church  in  Ireland,  it  is  necessary  to  remark,  that  the 
Irish  were  always  called  Scoti,  till  the  eleventh  or  twelvth 
century,  and  the  country  Scotia  ;5  so  that  what  relates  to  these 
must  be  regarded  as  illustrative  of  the  history  of  Ireland. 
In  the  case  of  the  church  in  Ireland,  as  in  that  of  Britain, 

1)  See  Canon,  Apost.  27,  28 ;  Ni-  4)  See  this  argument   very  ably 
cene,  16,  Sardican,  15.                                presented  in   the   Presb.  Rev.  April, 

2)  See  Du  Pin's  Eccl.  Hist.  vol.     1842,  Art.  i. 

v.  93,  Lond.   1693.     See  also  Stilling-  5)  Palmer's  Orig.  Lit.  vol.  i.  p.  182; 

fleet's  Orig.  Brit  ch.  v.  and  Usher's  see  a  host  of  authorities  produced  by 

Relig.  of  the  Anct.  Irish  and  Brit  c.  8  Mr.   Stuart,  in  his  learned   History  of 

and  9.  Armagh. 

3)  See  Lect.  on  the  Apost  Sue. 


CHAP.  I.]  WERE    PRESBYTERIAN.  461 

much  effort  is  made  to  obscure  and  darken  the  evidence  of  its 
true  primitive  character.  Moore,  on  behalf  of  the  Romish 
church,  does  not  hesitate  to  assert,  that  Christianity  first  reach- 
ed Ireland  through  the  agency  of  St.  Patrick  ;J  while  prelat- 
ists,  in  order  to  shut  out  the  light,  as  to  the  true  character  of 
the  primitive  church  in  Ireland,  throw  over  the  whole  subject 
a  veil  of  mystery.2 

As  to  the  reckless,  and  truly  Romish  assertion,  of  Moore,  it  is 
contradicted  by  St.  Patrick  and  himself.  In  giving  an  account 
of  the  great  successes  of  St.  Patrick,  in  Connaught,  Mr.  Moore 
observes,3 'it  is  supposed,  that  to  these  western  regions  of  Ire- 
land the  saint  alludes,  in  his  confession,  where  he  stated,  that 
he  had  visited  remote  districts,  where  no  missionary  had  been 
before ;  an  assertion  important,  as  plainly  implying  that,  in 
the  more  accessible  parts  of  the  country,  Christianity  had,  be- 
fore his  time,  been  preached  and  practiced.'  Again,  in  his 
account4  of  the  first  efforts  of  pope  Celestine,  to  relieve  the 
wants  of  the  Irish,  and  to  appoint  a  bishop  for  the  superin- 
tendence of  their  infant  church,'  he  relates,  that  the  person 
chosen  for  this  mission  '  to  the  Scots,  believing  in  Christ,  (for 
so  it  is  specified  by  the  chronicler,)  was  Palladius,  a  deacon 
of  the  Romish  church.'  Now,  as  this  mission  is  confessedly 
'  to  the  Scots  believing  in  Christ,'  it  is  manifest,  that  there 
were  christians  in  Ireland  before  it  took  place.  Mr.  Moore 
further  teaches,  that  the  Irish  christians  distinguished  them- 
selves, in  the  persons  of  Pelagius,  Celestine,  and  other  emin- 
ent scholars,  who  nevertheless  preceded  Patrick  nearly  a  cen- 
tury;  and  that  it  was  on  account  of  the  report  of  St.  German 
and  Lupus,  of  the  increasing  number  of  christians  in  Ireland, 
that  Palladius  was  sent  by  pope  Celestine.6  And,  in  numer- 
ous other  ways,  when  it  suits  his  purposes,  and  his  Romish 
prejudices,  to  speak  the  truth,  this  hired  advocate  of  the  papa- 
cy, who  prostitutes  to  a  sect  the  dignified  character  of  a  histo- 
rian, falsifies  his  own  assertion,  and  fully  corroborates  the 
truth  of  the  early  conversion  of  the  Irish. " 

It  is  probable,8  that,  in  the  very  days  of  the  apostles  them- 
selves, Christianity  had  extended  to  some  parts  of  this  island, 
and  had  continued  here  till  the  time  of  Chrysostom,  who,  in 
demonstrating  that  Christ  is  God,  says  :  '  the  British  isles,  sit- 

1)  Hist,  of  Ireland.  6)  Ibid. 

2)  Dr.  Bowden,  in  Wks.onEpisc.  7)  See  pp.  207,  208,237,  238,  254, 
vol.i.  p.  44.  &c:  in  ibid,  pp.  11,  21,  22,  23, 113. 

3)  P.  221,  Mason's  Prim.  Ch.  in  8)  Hist,  of  Armagh,  p.  612  ;  App. 
Ireland,  p.  4.  ]\To.  xiii.  pp.   613,  614  ;    Disc,  on  the 

4)  P.  209  ;  in  ibid,  pp.  5,  6.  state  of  the  Anct.  Irish  Ch. 

5)  P.  209  ;  pp.  8,  9. 


462  THE    IRISH    CHURCHES    PRESBYTERIAN.  [BOOK   III. 

uated  beyond  this  sea,  and  which  are  in  the  very  ocean,  have 
perceived  the  power  of  the  word  ;  for  even  there  churches  are 
founded  and  altars  erected.'1  Again,'2  in  his  twenty-eighth 
sermon  on  the  second  epistle  to  the  Cor.  12  :  '  into  whatsoever 
church  you  should  enter,  whether  among  the  Moors,  or  in 
those  British  isles,'  &c.  He  further  says,  '  although  thou 
shouldest  go  to  the  ocean,  and  those  British  isles,  &c,  thou 
shouldest  hear  all  men,  every  where,  discoursing  matter  out 
of  the  scriptures.'3  The  testimony  of  Tertullian,  already  ad- 
duced, and  which  asserts  the  christianized  state  of  these  islands, 
early  in  the  third  century,  is  believed  rather  to  refer  to  Ireland 
than  to  England.  Eusebius  (Pamphili)  says,  in  lib.  iii. 
that  some  of  the  apostles  had  passed  into  the  isles  which 
we  name  Britannic;  and  hence  Nicephorus  alleges,  that 
some  of  the  apostles  had  selected  Egypt  and  Syria,  others 
the  extreme  regions  of  ocean,  and  the  Britannic  isles,  for 
their  pious  missions.  It  is  shown  by  Usher,  that  Mansu  or 
Mansuetus,  a  Scot  of  Ireland,  was  converted  and  ordained 
by  St.  Peter  the  apostle,  and  in  the  year  66  made  bishop  of 
Toul,  now  Lorraine,  where  he  died  on  the  third  of  Septem- 
ber, 105.  Here  he  built  and  dedicated  a  church  to  St.  Ste- 
phen.5 

It  is  not  necessary  to  inquire  minutely  into  the  exact  time, 
when  Christianity  was  first  preached  in  Ireland.  Suffice  it,  that 
it  reached  this  country  at  a  very  early  period.  We  find,  that 
in  the  year  350,  Elephinus,  son  of  a  Scoto-Hibernian  king, 
suffered  martyrdom,  having  been  decapitated  by  order  of  the 
emperor  Julian,  who  was  enraged  at  this  pious  man  for  hav- 
ing baptized  a  number  of  his  subjects.  Rupert  mentions, 
that  the  apostate  himself  was  present  at  his  execution.6  In 
the  fourth  century  it  appears,  that  christian  missionaries  had 
here  founded  some  churches  and  schools,  and  thus  prepared 
the  way  for  the  more  effectual  preaching  of  St.  Patrick. 
Ailbe,  Declan,  Ibar,  and  Kiaran,  all  natives  of  this  country, 
were  the  immediate  precursors  of  Palladius.who  had  preced- 
ed St.  Patrick  in  his  mission  to  Ireland.7  Hence  we  may 
infer,  that  the  religion  of  Jesus  was  systematically  taught  in 
this  country  in  the  fourth  century.     This  is  incontestably  prov- 

1 )   Op.  torn.  vi.  ed.  Sav.  p.  635.  '  Inclyta,  Mansu*tn  claris  natalibus  orti 

o\    r»i>     »„„     ::;    eric   :„    i\/r„ „',.  Progenies  litul  s  Jalget  in  orbe  sins, 

„.   2L?P:   t?m;   i"-  696,  in  Masons  i„s£a  chrisiico.^stabat  Hiberniagentes 

Prim.  Ch.  in  Irel    p.  21.  Unde  genus  traxit  et  satus  inde  fuit.' 

3)  Op.  torn.  viii.  p.  111.  G)  Rupert  in  Vit.  Elephii, cap.  12, 

4)  See  above  and  Pictorial  Hist,  of  apud  Suriam,  torn.  5,  Oct.  16. 
England,  vol.  i.  p.  74.  7)  Vita    Dec     vita  Kiaran,  Vita 

5)  His  biographer  writes  thus  of  Alb.  &c    :   Citante   Usser,  Brit.  Eccl. 
him:  Ant.  p.  409. 


CHAT.  I.]       THE  EXISTENCE  OF  ST,  PATRICE  IS  DOUBTED.  463 

ed  by  Jerome,  who,  speaking  of  Olestius  says,  '  he  was  made 
fat  with  Scottish  flummery.'1  Be  this,  however,  as  it  may, 
St.  Patrick  was  not  sent  to  convert  a  nation  altogether  heathen. 
The  venerable  Bede  says,  that,  in  the  eighth  year  of  the  em- 
peror Theodosius,  Palladium  was  sent  by  Celestine,  bishop  of 
the  Roman  church,  to  the  Scots  believing1  in  Christ;-  and 
Prosper,  in  his  Chronicle  ad  Ann.  page  431,  testifies  to  the 
same  effect.  It  is,  therefore,  beyond  any  reasonable  doubt, 
that  Ireland  was  very  early  christianized,  certainly  before  the 
time  fixed  upon  for  the  mission  of  St.  Patrick.  As  to  the  ex- 
istence and  character  of  this  renowned  personage,  much  con- 
troversy has  arisen.  11  is  urged  by  many  eminent  writers,  and 
by  many  most  weighty  reasons,  that  the  whole  history,  mira- 
cles, mission,  and  acts  of  the  Romish  saint,  are  no  more  than 
one  of  the  fabulous  legends  got  up  in  the  ninth  century,  for 
the  purpose  of  advancing  the  cause  of  the  papacy  among  an 
ignorant  people.3 

Perhaps  the  true  solution  of  the  difficulties  presented  by  the 
case  of  St.  Patrick,  is  that  adopted  by  Dr.  Brownlee  and 
others,  that  while  the  Romish  saint,  St.  Patrick,  or,  as  Butler 
has  it,  '  Padraig,' 4  is  a  mere  creature  of  the  imagination,  like 
many  others  in  the  calendar,  and  his  whole  history  a  fabrica- 
tion, and  an  absurd  and  incredible  legend,  there  was,  never- 
theless, a  man  named  Succathers,  born  near  Glasgow,  at 
Kilpatrick,  and  a  Roman  citizen  of  noble  family,  and  hence 
called  Patricius,  a  nobleman,  which  was  contracted  into  Pat- 
rick."' That  this  Patrick  did  labor  among  the  inhabitants  of 
Ireland,  and  that  he  did  much  towards  spreading  Christianity 
in  the  country,  we  believe;  but  that  he  was  ever  at  Rome, 
that  he  was  related  to  St.  Martin,  that  he  was  ordained  bishop 
and  afterwards  archbishop  by  the  pope,  or  that  he  introduced 
into  Ireland  the  system  of  prelacy  or  popery,  either  as  it 
regards  church  polity  or  doctrine,  we  do  not  believe.  All 
this  we  regard  as  pure  fiction,  and  based  upon  the  contradic- 
tory fabrications  of  the  inventors  of  such  ready-made  biogra- 
phies.6 

The  forms  and  doctrines  of  the  Irish  christians  were  not 
derived  from  Rome,  but  from  Gaul  or  Britain.     'It  is  likely,' 

1)  In  Ledwich,  p.  54.  son's  Prim.  Church  in  Ireland,  pp.  14 

2)  Bed.  Hist.  Eccl.  lib.  i.  c.  13.  -16. 

3)  See  Dr  Ledwich's   Antiq.  of  4)  Lives  of  the    Saints.    Dublin. 
Ireland,  pp.  58-69,  and  the  authors  he  vol.  i.  p.  317. 

refers  to.      The  subject  is  elaborately  5)  St.  Patrick.  New    York,  1841. 

discussed  by  Mr.  Stuart,  in  his  History  p.  10. 

of  Armagh,  Introd.  i.  p.  70,  where  oth-  6)  See  Ledwich  as  above,  and  at 

er  authors  also  are  named;    Dr.  Ma-  p.  61. 


464  THE    PRIMITIVE    IRISH    CHURCHES  [BOOK   III. 

says  Mr.  Palmer, '  that  any  presbyters  who  may  have  come  to 
Ireland  during  the  first  ages,  were  sent  thither  by  the  British 
church.  Christianity  had  certainly  penetrated  into  Ireland 
long  before  the  time  of  Patrick,'  ....  and  as  there  seems  to 
be  no  authentic  account  of  the  original  source  from  whence 
Christianity  had  come  to  Ireland,  the  mere  geographical  posi- 
tion of  that  country,  in  relation  to  its  sister  island,  would 
induce  us  to  think  that,  the  former  must  have  received  religion 
and  ecclesiastical  rites  from  the  latter.'  *  During  the  Diocle- 
tian persecution,  Ireland  would  also  afford  a  refuge  to  the 
British  christians,  who  doubtless  many  of  them  flocked  to  that 
country.  Either  this  was  the  case,  or  else  Ireland  received 
Christianity  from  Gaul,  as  did  Britain,  since  the  forms,  usages, 
and  opinions  of  the  two  churches  remarkably  coincide,  both 
differing  from  the  Romish,  and  both  harmonizing  with  the 
oriental  churches.  And  as,  in  either  case,  the  presbyterian 
character  of  the  Irish  churches  is  made  out,  we  will  advert  to 
some  proofs  of  this  position. 

This  oriental  origin  of  Irish  Christianity  is  found  in  the  fact 
that,  in  their  mode  of  celebrating  Easter,  in  their  mode  of 
tonsure,  in  their  offices,  in  their  monastic  rules,  in  their  multi- 
plication of  bishops,  and  in  other  points,  the  Irish  differed  from 
the  Romish  church,  and  protested  against  its  customs  and 
doctrines,  as  intolerable  and  antichristian.  Laurentius,  the 
successor  of  Augustine  the  Monk,  in  his  letter  to  the  Scots 
in  Ireland,  about  the  year  A.  D.  604,  '  acquaints  them  -  what 
a  great  regard  he  had  for  the  Britains,  at  his  first  arrival  in 
the  island,  going  upon  the  charitable  presumption  of  their 
conformity  to  the  catholic  church  ;  but,  finding  himself  mista- 
ken, he  hoped  the  Scots  were  governed  by  more  exact  meas- 
ures. But  now  he  understood,  by  the  bishop  Daganus,  who 
sailed  into  this  island,  and  by  the  abbot  Columbanus,  whom 
he  met  with  in  France,  that  the  churches  of  the  Scots  and 
Britains  were  perfectly  alike.  For  Daganus,  the  bishop,  at 
his  coming  hither,  refused  not  only  to  eat  with  us,'  says  he, 
(  but  would  not  so  much  as  lodge  in  the  same  house.'  By 
thus  refusing  to  eat  or  to  domesticate  with  the  Romish  mis- 
sionaries, these  Irish  bishops,  we  must  remember,  were  actu- 
ally, according  to  the  canons,  declaring  them  to  be  excommu- 
nicate.' 3  The  truth  of  this  tradition  4  is  very  much  confirmed 
by  the  argument  of  St.  Colman,  more  especially  as  it  appears 

1)  Palmer's   Orig.   Liturg.  vol.  i.  3)  See  quoted  in  Ledwich.  p.  63. 
p.  l&i.  4)  Usher,  Rel.  of  Anct.  Irish  .p. 

2)  Collier,  Eccl.  Hist.  B.  ii.  cent.  03;  and  Mason's  Prim.  Chr.  p.  17. 
vii.  vol.  i.  p.  80. 


CHAP.  I.]  WERE    PRESBYTERIAN.  465 

in  the  life  of  Wilfred,  by  two  of  his  biographers.  One  of 
these  relates,  that  St.  Colman  said  thus,  '  We,  with  the  same 
confidence,  celebrate  the  same  as  his  disciples,  Polycarpus 
and  others,  did ;  neither  dare  we,  for  our  parts,  neither  will 
we,  change  this.'  The  other,  Fridegodus,  comes  still  closer 
to  the  point  in  these  lines,  describing  the  words  of  Colman, 
'  We  hold  by  our  country's  course,'  or  usage,  and  not  '  frivo- 
lous writings,  such  as  was  given  by  Polycarp,  '  the  disciple 
of  St.  John) ' 

Gennadius,  who  wrote  before  the  year  A.  D.  493,  uses  very 
remarkable  words,  which  at  once  prove  the  early  conversion 
of  Ireland,  and  the  oriental  source  of  its  Christianity.1  It  is 
also  a  curious  fact,  and  one  of  some  importance  on  this  head, 
that  the  use  of  the  Greek  alphabet  was  employed  in  the 
writing  of  one  of  the  most  ancient  books  that  we  possess  in 
Ireland,  the  book  of  Armagh.  A  further  and  striking  proof 
of  the  eastern,  and,  consequently,  the  anti-Romish  origin  of 
the  Irish  church,  and  of  its  unquestionable  presbyterianism,2 
appears  to  be  the  great  multiplication  of  bishops  in  Ireland, 
since  they  changed  and  multiplied  them  at  pleasure.  Their 
number,  says  Dr.  Ledwich,  was  prodigious.  In  like  manner 
we  read  that  St.  Basil,  in  the  fourth  century,  had  fifty  rural 
bishops  in  his  diocese;  and  that  there  were  five  hundred  sees 
in  the  six  African  provinces.  This  rule  of  the  Irish  church 
occasioned  great  animosity  on  the  part  of  Rome.  Anselm 
complains  bitterly,  that '  these  bishops  everywhere  were  elected 
and  consecrated  without  a  title,  and  by  one  bishop  instead  of 
three,  which  was  according  to  the  Roman  plan.'  No  objec- 
tion can  be  made  to  the  testimony  of  St.  Bernard  and  Anselm 
on  this  head,  being  Romanists  themselves  ;  but  the  truth  of  it 
does  not  depend  on  their  statements  alone.  Virgil,  and  seven 
Irish  bishops,  went  forth  on  a  mission  together  to  Germany, 
in  the  middle  of  the  eighth  century.  In  the  seventh  century 
they  swarmed  in  Britain,  as  may  be  seen  from  Bede.  In  fact, 
the  churches  in  Scotland  and  the  north  of  England  were  reg- 
ularly supplied  with  bishops  and  presbyters  from  the  Irish 
church,  and  this  was  become  so  general  that  there  could  not 
be  found  three   Romish  bishops  to  consecrate    Wilfred ;  all 

1)  Placuit  nempe  altissimo,  ut  S.  Script.  111.  c.  44;  O'Con.  Proleg.  i.  78; 

Athanasius,  ex  iEgypto  pulsus  ab  Ari-  Dr.  Mason's  Prim.  Chr.  pp.  19,  20. 

anis,  vitam  monasticam,  usque  ad  id  2)  See  these  facts  fully  substan- 

tempus  in   occidente   ignominiosam;  tiated  in  Ledwich's  Antiq.  of  Irel.  pp. 

Scotis,    Attacottis,  aliisque    barbaris  SI -83:    they  are  also  given  in  dean 

Romanum     imperium     vastantibus  ;  Murray's   Hist,  of  the    Cath.  Ch.  in 

S.  S.  Ambrosio  et  Martino  opem  feren-  Ireland, 
tibus ;  propalaret,  ann.  circ.  336.     De 

59 


466  THE    PRIMITIVE    CHURCHES    IN    IRELAND.       [BOOK  III. 

being  of  Irish  consecration,  and  natives  of  Ireland.  In  670, 
Theodore,  archbishop  of  Canterbury,  decreed,  that  they  who 
were  consecrated  by  Irish  or  British  bishops,  should  be  con- 
firmed anew  by  a  catholic  one.  The  fifth  canon  of  the  coun- 
cil of  Ceale-hyth,  in  section  16,  requires,  '  that  none  of  Irish 
extraction  be  permitted  to  usurp  to  himself  the  sacred  minis- 
try, in  any  one's  diocese ;  nor  let  it  be  allowed  such  an  one 
to  touch  any  thing  which  belongs  to  those  of  the  holy  order ; 
nor  to  receive  any  thing  from  them  in  baptism,  or  in  the  cele- 
bration of  the  mass;  or  that  they  administer  the  eucharist  to 
the  people,  because  we  are  not  certain  how  or  by  whom  they 
were  ordained.  We  know  how  it  is  enjoined  in  the  canons, 
that  no  bishop  or  presbyter  invade  the  parish  of  another,  with- 
out the  bishop's  consent,  so  much  the  rather  should  we  refuse 
to  receive  the  sacred  ministrations  from  other  nations,  where 
there  is  no  such  order  as  that  of  metropolitans,  nor  any  regard 
paid  to  other  orders.'  The  Astmen,  also,  when  they  received 
the  faith  from  Romanists,  in  the  9th  century,  would  not  suffer 
their  bishops  to  be  ordained  by  the  Irish,  but  sent  them  to 
Canterbury.1  Here  we  can  trace,  by  collecting  and  compar- 
ing these  facts,  the  steps  taken  by  the  ever-watchful  jealousy 
of  the  church  of  Rome  to  suppress  the  Irish  church,  which 
had  taken  so  deep  a  root  at  this  time  in  England,  and  which 
was  extending  its  influence  to  so  many  different  parts  of 
Europe,  and  also  to  transform  presbyterian  bishops,  or 
pastors  and  itinerant  missionaries,  into  hierarchical  prelates. 
The  fears  of  the  Saxons  were  soon  communicated  to  the  con- 
tinental clergy.  The  forty-second  canon  of  Chalons,  in  sec- 
tion 13,  forbids  certain  '  Irishmen,  who  gave  themselves  out 
to  be  bishops,  to  ordain  priests  or  deacons,  without  the  consent 
of  the  ordinary.'  The  same  year,  the  council  of  Aix  La  Cha- 
pelle  observes,  '  that  in  some  places  were  there  Irish,  who 
called  themselves  bishops,  and  ordained  many  improper  per- 
sons, without  the  consent  of  their  lords  or  of  the  magistrates.' 
These  alarms  could  only  have  been  excited  by  the  number, 
zeal,  and  perseverance  of  the  Irish  presbyter-bishops,  and  the 
jealousy  with  which  the  Romish  clergy  regarded  their  exer- 
tions as  a  missionary  church. 

There  is  a  very  curious  and  authentic  record  preserved  in 
Wilkin's  Councils,  which  not  only  shows  the  number  of  Irish 
bishops,  but  also  clearly  proves  their  form  of  government  to 
have  been  presbyterian  in  its  principles.  '  A.  D.  1216.  Con- 
stitutions made  in  the  cathedral  church  of  St.  Peter's  and  St. 

1)  Ledwich,  p.  95. 


CHAP.  I. 


WERE    FRESBYTEEIAN.  467 


Paul's,  of  Xewton,  Athumy,  by  Simon  Rocbford.  by  the 
grace  of  God,  bishop  of  Meath  —  Cardinal  Paparo.  legate  of 
the  sovereign  pontiff  Eugenius  III.'  having  directed,  in  the 
third  general  council,  held  at  Kells.  in  Meath.  in  the  year 
1152,  among  other  salutary  canons.  •  that,  on  the  death  of  a 
village  bishop,  or  of  bishops  who  possessed  small  sees  in  Ire- 
land, rural  deans  should  be  appointed  by  the  diocesans,  to 
succeed  them,  who  should  superintend  the  clergy  and  laity  in 
their  respective  districts,  and  that  each  of  their  sees  should  be 
erected  into  a  rural  deanerv  —  we.  in  obedience  to  such  regu- 
lations, do  constitute  and  appoint,  that,  in  the  churches  of  Ath- 
urny. Kells.  Slane.  Skrine.  and  Dunshaughlin.  being  hereto- 
fore bishops's  sees  in  Meath.  shall  hereafter  be  the  heads  of 
rural  deaneries,  with  archpresbyters  personally  residing 
therein/  Here  we  have  a  clear  and  full  development  of  the 
state  of  the  ancient  government,  by  these  efforts  to  graft  upon  it 
the  orders  of  the  hierarchy:  and  a  confirmation  of  what  has 
been  stated,  namely,  that  Ireland  was  full  of  village  bishops, 
who  were  certainly  nothing  but  presbyterian  pastors,  and  yet 
exercised  all  episcopal  functions.  Meath  could  boast  of  Clo- 
nard.  Duleek.  Trim.  Ardbraccan.  Dunshaughlin.  Slane.  Foure. 
Skrine.  Mullingar.  Loughseedy.  Athunry.  Ardmirchor,  and 
Hallyloughort.  Dullin.  Swords.  Lusk.  Finglas.  Newcastle, 
Tawney.  Leixlip.  Brav.  Wicklow,  Arklow.  Ballymore,  Clan- 
dalkin,  Tallagh.  and  O'Murthy.  These  were  all  formerly 
rural  sees.  The  transmutations,  however,  which  commenced 
with  the  introduction  of  popery  in  1152.  proceeded  very 
slowly,  for.  by  bishop  Rochfort's  constitutions.it  appears  they 
were  far  from  being  completed  in  the  thirteenth  century.  So 
powerfully  did  the  primitive  presbyterianism  of  the  people 
resist  all  prelatical  innovations. 

The  number  of  bishops  at  one  time  in  Ireland,  amounted, 
says  Dr.  Ledwich.  to  three  hundred  ;  every  church  had  its 
own  bishop.1  And  can  any  man.  in  his  sober  senses,  pre- 
tend that  these  were  diocesan  prelates,  or  any  other  than  pres- 
byterian pastors  of  so  many  churches,  many  of  them  small 
and  insignificant  ?  Impossible.  No  reasonable  man  can 
avoid  inferring  from  these  facts,  which  are  adduced  by  prela- 
tists  themselves,  that  the  primitive  government  of  the  Irish 
churches  was  presbyterian,  as  its  principles  were  protectant. 2 
There  is  not  a  circumstance,  savs  Dr.  Ledwich.  in  our  eccles- 
iastical polity,  more  stronglv  indicative  of  an  eastern  origin, 
than  that  now  related.     For  Salmasius  has  evinced  the  apos- 

1)  Ibid.  p.  S4.  2)  See  Ledwich.  p.  S3. 


468  THE    PRIMITIVE    IRISH    CHURCHES  [BOOK  III. 

tolic  practice  to  be,  to  place  bishops  in  every  rural  church, 
and  in  cities  more  than  one.  Hence  the  first  obtained  the 
name  of  chorepiscopus.  St.  Basil,  in  the  fourth  century,  had 
fifty  of  these  rural  bishops  in  his  diocese,  which  was  proba- 
bly one  for  each  church.  By  the  ancient  discipline,  the  exten- 
sion of  Christianity  depended  on  their  multiplication,  for  to 
them  alone  the  great  offices  of  religion  were  confined;  they 
alone  could  execute  them,  and  they  alone  preached  in  the 
African  church  in  the  fifth  century.  As  the  episcopal  dignity 
was  lessened  in  the  public  esteem  by  the  number  of  village 
bishops,  their  ordination  was  restrained  by  the  Antiochian, 
Ancyran,  and  other  canons ;  in  the  Laodicean  council  their 
name  was  changed  from  chorepiscopus  to  periodeutes,  or  vis- 
iter-itinerant ;  he  was,  however,  to  be  a  priest,  and  to  have 
the  inspection  of  a  certain  number  of  churches  and  clergy- 
men, thus  giving  him  some  distinction,  to  save  appearances 
and  prevent  opposition.  The  arch  presbyter,  in  the  Roman 
church,  was  nearly  such  an  officer  as  the  periodeutes.  About 
the  time  of  the  Norman  conquest,  the  archpresbyter  was 
called  a  rural  dean.  At  this  period,  an  old  writer  informs 
us,  the  see  of  Canterbury  had  a  chorepiscopus,  who  dwelt  in 
the  church  of  St.  Martin,  without  Canterbury.  On  the  arri- 
val of  Lafranc,  he  was  turned  out,  as  we  have  heard  the 
others  were  throughout  England.  As  a  municipal  law 
hindered  the  operation  of  the  canons  here,  and  as  no  for- 
eign power  had  as  yet  interfered, like  the  Anglo-Saxons  and 
Normans  in  England,  either  to  compel  the  Irish  to  submission 
or  conformity  to  them,  they  continued  to  preserve  that  plan  of 
episcopacy  (that  is,  of  presbyterian  episcopacy,)  delivered  to 
them  and  settled  by  the  first  preachers  of  the  gospel,  and 
which  at  length  was  most  reluctantly  relinquished.  If  any  thing 
could  be  wanted  to  complete  this  proof,  it  is  the  fact,  also 
given  by  Dr.  Ledwich,  that,  as  the  island  was  divided  into 
four  provinces,  there  were  in  like  manner  four  ministers 
appointed  to  ' preside''  over  them.  There  presidents  were 
called  bishops,  and  not  metropolitans.  So  that  even  these 
superintendents  were  chosen  from  among  the  other  bishops 
or  presbyters,  and  received  no  new  title,  nor,  as  far  as  we 
know,  any  second  ordination.1 

The  next  proof  of  the  eastern  origin  of  the  Irish  church, 
and  its  opposition  to  Rome,  is  derived  from  the  circumstance, 
that  the  original  practice  of  hereditary  succession  was  firmly 
established  in  the  primitive  Irish  church.     St.  Bernard,  in  his 

1)  See  Ledwich,  p.  79. 


CHAP.  I.]  WERE    PRESBYTERIAN.  469 

life  of  Malachy,  complains  of  this  custom,  in  the  following 
words :  '  A  most  pernicious  custom  had  gained  strength  by 
a  diabolical  ambition  of  some  men  in  power,  who  possessed 
themselves  of  bishoprics  by  hereditary  succession;  nor  did 
they  suffer  any  to  be  put  in  election  for  them,  but  such  as 
were  of  their  own  tribe  or  family ;  and  this  kind  of  execrable 
succession  made  no  small  progress,  for  fifteen  generations  had 
passed  over  in  this  mischievous  custom ;  and  so  far  had  this 
wicked  and  adulterous  generation  confirmed  itself  in  this 
untoward  privilege,  that  although  it  sometimes  happened  that 
clergymen  of  their  family  failed,  yet  bishops  of  it  never 
failed ;  in  fine,  eight  married  men,  and  not  in  orders,  though 
men  of  learning,  were  predecessors  of  Celsus  in  Armagh. 
The  first  twenty-seven  bishops  of  Ross  Carbery  were  of  the 
family  of  St.  Fachen,  its  first  prelate.  To  this  we  may  add 
that  Columba,  founder  of  the  celebrated  Culdean  monastery 
at  Iona,  being  of  the  Tyrconnelian  blood,  the  abbots  his  suc- 
cessors were  of  the  same  race.  Hereditary  succession 
became  a  fixed  municipal  law,  and  pervaded  church  and 
state,  and  hence  the  struggle  in  the  See  of  Armagh,  to  which 
Malachy  O' Morgan  was  appointed  in  1129,  to  the  exclusion 
of  the  old  family ;  which  had  nearly  proved  fatal  to  him,  and 
called  forth  the  warm  resentment  of  St.  ..Bernard,  his 
friend.  It  further  appears,  that  after  the  consolidation  of 
Glendalough  with  Dublin,  in  1152  and  1179,  the  Tooles,  the 
original  proprietors,  still  obtained  the  title  and  presentation 
until  1497.  'On  the  whole,' says  Dr.  Ledwich,1  'it  may 
safely  be  affirmed,  that  every  mother  church,  and  there  were 
none  others  in  early  ages,  had  a  bishop;  that  inferior  toparchs 
and  small  towns,  as  Dublin,  confined  to  a  few  acres  within 
its  walls,  erected  sees;  add  to  these  the  number  generated, 
if  I  may  say  so,  by  the  exercise  of  metropolitan  power, 
altogether  made  so  many  of  the  episcopal  order  as  would  be, 
if  not  so  well  authenticated,  utterly  incredible.' 

'  From  this  it  seems  evident  that  our  bishops  and  clergy 
were  married  men,  till  the  introduction  of  popery  in  the 
twelfth  century ;  and  to  this  St.  Bernard  refers,  when  he  says, 
'  they  were  a  wicked  and  adulterous  generation.' 

Again,  the  ancient  formularies  of  the  Irish  church  agreed 
with  the  Greek,  and  manifestly  differed  from  the  Roman,  in 
the  communion  service,  in  the  prophetical  lessons,  in  the  ser- 
mon and  offices  after  it,  and  in  various  other  particulars. 
'  The  Irish,'  we  are  told  by  St.  Bernard,  in  his  Life  of  Mala- 

1)  P.  84. 


470  THE    PRIMITIVE    IRISH    CHURCHES  [BOOK  III. 

chy,  '  rejected  auricular  confession,  as  well  as  authoritative 
absolution.'  They  confessed  to  God  alone,  as  believing 
'  God  alone  could  forgive  sins.'  They  would  neither  give  to 
the  church  of  Rome  the  tenths  nor  the  first-fruits,  nor  would 
they  be  legitimately  married ;  that  is,  according  to  the  forms 
insisted  on  by  the  Romish  church.  Before  the  council  of 
Cashel,  convened  by  Henry  the  Second,  in  1172,  marriage 
was  regarded  as  a  civil  rite,  and  was  performed  by  the  magis- 
tracy;  at  that  council,  the  priests  were  authorized  to  perform 
the  ceremony,  and  therefore  we  find  the  ancient  Irish  chris- 
tians denounced  '  as  schismatics  and  heretics,'  by  St.  Bernard  ; 
and  as  being  in  reality  '  pagans,  while  calling  themselves 
christians.'  These  partial  formularies,  however,  had  no 
resemblance  to  prelatical  liturgies.  There  is  nothing  like  a 
liturgy  remaining,  which  can  date  its  origin  within  any  very 
early  age.  Neither  were  these  forms  binding  on  the  churches. 
They  were  made  and  unmade  by  each  bishop,  or  pastor. 
This  is  the  testimony  of  the  historian,  Gordon.  Of  the 
ancient  Irish  church,  he  says,  '  It  maintained  not  a  uniformity 
of  worship.  Almost  every  diocese  had  a  particular  liturgy; 
and  even  the  several  congregations  were  frequently  found  to 
differ  in  rites,  modes,  and  offices,  of  public  devotion.'1  They 
were  also  very  various.  Among  others,  who  have  unwittingly 
substantiated  these  views,  we  may  mention  Gillebert,  the  pope's 
legate,  and  bishop  of  Limerick,  who,  in  the  eleventh  century, 
wrote  what  he  calls  '  the  canonical  custom  of  performing  the 
offices  of  the  whole  ecclesiastical  order,'  in  which  he  informs 
those  for  whom  they  were  prepared,  that  it  was  '  to  the  end 
that  those  different  and  schismatical  orders,  by  which  almost 
all  Ireland  was  deluded,  might  give  place  to  one  catholic  and 
Roman  office.'2 

But  still  further,  the  eastern  origin  and  the  certain  presby- 
terianism  of  the  Irish  churches,  is  proved  from  the  fact  that 
their  bishops  or  pastors  were  elected  by  the  people ; 3  were 
supported  by  the  voluntary  contributions  of  the  people,  and 
not  by  tithes;4  and  were  ordained,  many  of  them, sine  titulo, 
to  itinerate  and  missionate  though  the  unsupplied  regions  of 

1)  Gordon's  Hist,  of  Ireland,  vol.  customs  arose,  and  several  became  so 
i.  p.  53.  established  as   to  receive  the  names 

2)  Mr.  Palmer,  in  his  Origines  of  their  respective  churches.  Thus, 
Liturgicse,  in  reference  to  the  liturgi-  gradually,  the  'uses,'  or  customs  of 
cal  books  of  the  Anglo-Saxon  church,  York,  Sarum,  Hereford,  Bangor,  Lin- 
vol.  i.  p.  186,  says,  '  As,  however,  each  coin,  Aberdeen,  &c.  came  to  be  distin- 
bishop  had  the  power  of  making  some  guished  from  each  other, 
improvements  in  the  liturgy  of  his  3)  Ledwich,  pp.  81,  S5. 
church,  in   process  of  time   different  4)  Ibid,  p.  85. 


CHAP.  I.]  WERE    PRESBYTERIAN.  471 

country.1  Nay,  more,  to  make  the  picture  a  still  more 
striking  likeness,  we  are  informed,  that  these  ancient  Irish 
churches  were  modelled,  like  all  other  apostolical  churches, 
after  the  Jewish  synagogue.  Hence,  as  all  synagogues  had 
schools  connected  with  them,  they  formed  seminaries  for 
the  instruction  and  preparation  of  the  ministry.2  Hence,  too, 
the  individual  who  presided  over  these  communities  of  pres- 
byters was  denominated  abbot,  or  doctor,  just  as  the 
ancient  Jewish  presidents  were  called  by  these  names.3  This 
is  the  common  title,  says  Ware,  of  '  most  of  the  ancient 
Irish  prelates.'4  And  'the  title  of  bishop  was  less  honorable 
than  that  of  abbot,  to  whom  (though  he  was  a  presbyter,  or 
a  layman)  the  bishop  was  sometimes  subordinate.'5  Still 
more.  Like  all  modern  presbyterian  churches,  with  a  small 
exception,  these  ancient  Irish  churches  employed  in  their 
psalmody,  not  only  the  ancient  psalms,  but  also  modern 
hymns,  expressive  of  scriptural  and  devotional  sentiments.0 
Like  them,  too,  they  were  the  patrons  of  a  learned,  as  well 
as  a  pious  ministry.  They  poured  out  their  wealth  in  the 
endowment  of  their  theological  seminaries,  and  the  gratuitous 
support  of  students.  They  made  their  country  illustrious 
throughout  the  world,  as  the  island  of  saints,  and  the  light  of 
other  lands.  They  gave  missionaries,  scholars,  and  profess- 
ors, to  Europe.  Claudius  Sedulius,  Johannes  Scotus  Erigena, 
Armachanus,  and  a  host  of  others,  shone  forth  as  stars  of  the 
first  magnitude.  The  Irish  church  was  also  eminently  and 
essentially  a  missionary  church.7 

And  to  crown  all.  While  it  is  alleged,  that  the  most  illus- 
trious and  ancient  order  of  catholic  saints  was  that  begun  in 
the  time  of  St.  Patrick,  these  are  described  as  having  one 
head,  which  is  Christ ;  one  leader  who  was  St.  Patrick  ;  and 
one  tonsure  ;  and  they  did  not  reject  the  attendance  and  com- 
pany of  women.  These  continued  from  A.  D.  433  to  A.  D. 
534.  And  '  all  the  saints  of  this  class  were  bishops 
(that  is,  presbyter-bishops) ;  their  number  three  hundred 
and  fifty.'8  If,  therefore,  any  point  touching  such  ancient 
times  can  be  regarded  as  susceptible  of  proof,  it  is,  that  the 
ancient  Irish  churches  were  in  their  origin  oriental,  and  not 
Romish;  in  their  principles,  protestant ;  and  in  their  ecclesi- 
astical views  and  forms  essentially  presbyterian.      '  O'Hal- 

1)  Ledwich,pp.  59,  75.  6)  Ibid,  p.  92. 

2)  Ibid,  p.  S9,  where  see  authority.  7J I  Ibid,  p.  95,  &c.     Stuart's  Hist. 

3)  Abba,  or  father,  see  ibid.  of  Armagh. 

4)  In  ibid.  8)  Ibid,  p.  96. 

5)  Ibid,  p.  98. 


472  THE    PRIMITIVE    IRISH    CHURCHES  [BOOK  III. 

loran  himself,'  says  Mr.  Stuart,1  'roundly  asserts,  that  before, 
during,  and  for  two  centuries  after  the  death  of  St.  Patrick, 
the  Irish  churches  adhered  most  strictly  to  the  Asiatic  church- 
es, in  their  modes  of  discipline.2 

Nor  can  it  be  doubted,  that  they  continued  to  maintain  their 
protest  against  the  abominations  of  Rome  until  the  twelfth 
century.  The  letter  of  Henry,  to  pope  Adrian  the  fourth,  is 
conclusive  evidence  on  this  subject.  In  that  letter,  he  alleged, 
'  that  as  the  Irish  were  schismatics  and  bad  christians,  it  was 
necessary  to  reform  them,  and  oblige  them  to  own  the  papal 
authority,  which  they  had  hitherto  disregarded,  and  that  the 
most  probable  means  was,  to  bring  them  into  subjection  to  the 
crown  of  England,'  which,  he  says, '  had  ever  been  devoted  to 
the  holy  see.'  In  the  bull  issued  by  this  pope,  A.  D.  1156, 
he  says,3 'your  highness'  desire  of  extending  the  glory  of 
your  name  on  earth,  and  of  obtaining  the  reward  of  eternal 
happiness  in  heaven,  is  laudable  and  beneficial;  inasmuch 
as  your  intent  is,  as  a  catholic  prince,  to  enlarge  the  limits  of 
the  church ;  to  declare  the  truth  of  the  christian  faith  to 
untaught  and  rude  nations,  and  to  eradicate  vice  from  the 
field  of  the  Lord.'  Hence,  to  use  the  words  of  bishop 
Burgess,  — '  this  curious  and  important  document  contains 
indisputable  evidence,  that  popery  was  not  the  ancient 
religion  of  the  Irish  —  was  not  the  religion  of  Ireland 
before  the  middle  of  the  twelfth  century.'  And  as  the 
best  evidence  that  can  be  adduced  is  that  of  an  enemy,  we 
may  also  mention  that  furnished  by  Bede,  from  whom  we 
learn,  that  pope  Honorius,  when  using  the  strongest  argu- 
ment he  could  devise,  in  order  to  induce  the  Irish  church  to 
submit  to  the  Roman  see,  exhorted  them,  '  not  to  esteem  their 
own  small  number  wiser  than  all  the  rest  of  the  world ; 
hereby  admitting,  in  the  strongest  possible  way,  their 
estrangement  from,  and  entire  disagreement  with,  the 
see  of  Rome.  The  early  Irish  christians  did  not  believe 
in  the  efficacy  of  prayers  to  saints  and  angels.  They 
neither  prayed  to  dead  men,  nor  for  them,  nor  was  the 
service  for  the  dead  ever  used  by  the  Irish  church,  till  they 
were  obliged  to  attend  to  it  by  the  council  of  Cashel,  as  may 
be  seen  by  a  reference  to  the  proceedings  of  that  convention. 

That  the  doctrine  of  transubstantiation  was  not  held  by 
the  early  church  of  Ireland,  is  evident  by  the  reception  which 

1)  Hist,  of  Armagh,  p.  623.  don's  Hist,  of  Ireland,  vol.   i.  p.   53, 

2)  The  Irish  church  also  resem-     and  in  the  small  extent  of  its  episco- 
bled   the    early    Greek    and    eastern     pates.     Ibid,  p.  55. 

churches,  in  rites  and  discipline.  Gor-  3)    See   Rapin's   Hist,   of  Engl. 

Hume,  on  Leland's  Hist,  of  Ireland. 


CHAP.  I.]  WERE    PRESEYTERIAN.  473 

it  received,  on  its  being  first  promulgated  by  several  Irish 
divines,  among  others,  by  the  justly  celebrated  Johannes  Scotus 
Erigena,  so  highly  esteemed  at  the  court  of  Charles  the  Bald, 
for  his  learning  and  piety,  and  whose  book  was  con- 
demned by  the  pope  and  the  council  of  Versailles,  as  the  only 
way  they  could  confute  it.  Previously  to  this  the  Irish  received 
the  Lord's  supper  in  both  kinds,  and  they  called  it  '  the  com- 
munion of  the  body  and  blood  of  their  Lord  and  Saviour.' 
In  their  places  of  worship,  they  had  no  images  nor  statues ; 
on  the  contrary,  their  use  was  not  only  expressly  condemned, 
as  we  learn  from  Sedulius,  one  of  their  early  divines,  but 
mentioned  also  by  others  of  them,  '  as  heathenish  and  idola- 
trous.' So  far  were  the  early  Irish  christians  from  believing 
in  purgatory,  that,  until  the  period  of  Henry  and  Adrian's 
usurpation,  the  word  does  not  appear  to  have  been  known  to 
the  Irish  writers.  That  a  number  of  the  ceremonies  of  the 
Romish  church,  such  as  attending  to  canonical  forms,  singing 
in  choirs,  the  use  of  the  consecrated  chrism  in  baptism,  the 
sacrifices  of  the  mass,  and  the  dispensing  of  indulgences, 
were  unknown,  or  at  least  unpracticed  in  Ireland,  until  the 
period  referred  to.  is  matter  of  undoubted  historical  record ; 
the  circumstances  being  alluded  to  by  various  Romish 
writers,  who  complain  of  the  stubbornness  and  heretical 
feeling  of  the  Irish,  on  these  points,  and  who  have  happily 
furnished  the  most  undoubted  evidence  as  to  the  com- 
parative purity  of  the  church  they  so  fiercely  endeavor  to 
malign.  Anselm,  archbishop  of  Canterbury,  in  the  twelfth 
century,  declares,  that  even  the  Irish  'bishops  were  every 
where  elected,'  and  he  pitifully  regrets  that  they  had  not 
yet  received  even  the  pall  from  Rome.1  That  they  were 
thoroughly  protectant  in  all  points  of  essential  doctrine 
has  been  most  fully  and  repeatedly  shown.  And  that 
their  presbyterian  principles  continued  to  manifest  them- 
selves even  after  their  subjection  to  Rome,  appears  from  the 
sentiments  already  adduced  from  Johannes  Scotus  Erigena,3 
and  from  Armachanus  ;3  and  from  the  fact,  that,  at  the  reforma- 
tion, the  Irish  clergy  were  the  most  anxiously  bent  on  intro- 
ducing puritanism,  both  in  doclrine  and  discipline.4 

As  to  the  idea,  that  any  prelatical  succession  can  be  made 
out  in  Ireland,  it  is  enough,  in  order  to  show  its  absurdity,  to 
produce  the  statement  of  Sir  James  Ware,  in  his  Prelates  of 

1)  Mason's   Prim.   Chr.  p.  45.—  4)  See  Dr.  Taylor's  Rom.  Biog. 
Usher's  Anct.  Irish,  p.  96.  of  the  Age  of  Elizab.    The  Articles  of 

2)  Ibid  and  Usher,  passim.  the  Irish  Church.     Ushers  Wks.&c. 

3)  See  B.  ii. 

60 


474  SAINT    PATRICK    HAD  [BOOK  III. 

Ireland,1  in  reference  to  the  See  of  Armagh.  '  Celsus,  being 
near  his  death,  was  solicitous  that  Malachy  Morgair,  then 
bishop  of  Connor,  should  succeed  him,  and  sent  his  staff"  to 
him  as  his  successor.  Nor  was  he  disappointed,  for  Malachy 
succeeded  him,  though  not  immediately,  '  for  one  Maurice, 
son  of  Donald,  a  person  of  noble  birth,  for  five  years,  (says 
the  same  Bernard,)  by  secular  power,  held  that  church  in 
possession,  not  as  a  bishop,  but  as  a  tyrant ;  for  the  ambition 
of  some  in  power,  had,  at  that  time,  introduced  a  diabolical 
custom  of  pretending  to  ecclesiastical  sees,  by  hereditary 
succession  ;  not  suffering  any  bishops  but  the  descendants  of 
their  own  family.  Nor  was  tins  kind  of  execrable  succession 
of  short  continuance  :  for  fifteen  generations  (or  successions 
of  bishops,  as  Colgan  has  it)  had  succeeded  in  that  manner ; 
and  so  far  had  that  evil  and  adulterate  generation  confirmed 
the  wicked  course,  that  sometimes,  though  clerks  of  their  blood 
might  fail,  yet  bishops  never  failed,  In  fine,  eight  married 
men,  and  without  orders,  though  scholars,  were  predecessors 
to  Celsus,  from  whence  proceeded  that  general  dissolution  of 
ecclesiastical  discipline,  (whereof  we  have  spoken  largely 
before,)  that  contempt  of  censures,  and  decay  of  religion, 
throughout  Ireland.'  Thus  Bernard.  The  names  of  those  eight 
married  men,  unordained,  Colgan  delivers  in  the  place  above 
cited.'  (Bishops  of  Armagh,  p.  9.)  If  such  irregularities 
occurred  in  the  primate's  see,  we  may  conclude,  that  it  would 
be  somewhat  difficult  to  trace  the  succession  in  other  dio- 
ceses, where  Sir  James  Ware  has  not  been  able  to  ascertain 
even  the  names  of  the  bishops  for  centuries  together.  (See  his 
'  Bishops  of  Rapho.')  To  this  we  must  add  the  positive 
assertion  of  Prosper,  in  his  Chronicle,  that  Palladius  was  the 
first  bishop  of  the  Irish,  ' primus  episcopus?  That  this  testi- 
mony is  utterly  destructive  to  the  hopes  of  prelatists,  is 
manifest,  from  the  attempts  to  set  it  aside.  Dr.  Mason,  after 
archbishop  Usher,  would,  therefore,  have  us  believe,  that  by 
primus  is  to  be  understood  primate  or  archbishop ; 1  and  yet, 
he  himself  shows,  that  such  a  thing  as  archbishop  was  not 
found  in  Ireland  till  the  eight  century,  while  every  tyro  knows, 
that  primus  means  first. 

The  proof  being  thus  incontestable  for  the  anti- Romish  origin 
and  character  of  the  Irish  church,  since  we  have  admitted  the 
real  existence  of  St.  Patrick,  we  must  conclude,  that  he  had 
no  connection  with  Rome.  To  establish  this  point,  says  Dr. 
Phelan,2  it  will  be  necessary  to  review  two  classes  of  author- 
ities ;  the  one,  Romish  documents,  in  which,  as   Ledwich 

1)  In  Presb.  Def.  p.  69.  dean  Murray's  Hist,  of  the  Catholic 

2)  Prim.  Chr.  in  Ireland,  p.  6.    In     Ch.  in  Ireland. 


CHAP.  I.]        NO  CONNECTION  WITH  ROME.  475 

observed,  the  name  of  Patrick  is  suspiciously  omitted  ;  the 
other,  Irish  documents,  which  have  been  adduced  on  the 
opposite  side,  and  which,  as  they  are  decisive  for  the  exist- 
ence of  our  saint,  so  are  they  equally  decisive  against  his 
Roman  mission.  To  begin  with  Romish  documents,  Patrick 
is  not  mentioned  in  the  Chronicle  of  Prosper.  Prosper  pub- 
lished his  Chronicle  many  years  after  the  time  of  Patrick. 
He  was  disposed  to  do  full  justice  to  the  spiritual  achieve- 
ments of  the  pontiff,  yet  he  does  not  mention  Patrick.  Pal- 
ladius,  as  I  said  before,  came  to  Ireland,  stayed  a  few  weeks, 
built  three  chapels,  and  ran  away;  but  because  Palladius 
was  sent  by  Celestine,  Prosper  has  commemorated  the  brief 
and  ignoble  effort.  On  the  other  hand,  when  Prosper  pub- 
lished the  last  edition  of  his  Chronicles,  Patrick  had  been 
twenty-three  years  in  Ireland,  and  his  ministry  had  been 
blessed  with  the  most  signal  success.  What  could  have 
been  the  reason  that  he  was  omitted  by  Prosper.  The  vene- 
rable Bede  agrees  with  Prosper  in  the  mention  of  Palladius, 
and  the  omission  of  Patrick.  Bede  was  strongly  attached  to 
the  see  of  Rome,  and  though  he  speaks  in  liberal  and  grate- 
ful terms  of  the  Irish,  he  seldom  forgets  to  qualify  his  praise 
by  some  slight  censure  on  their  schismatical  discipline.' 

'  But  let  us  pass  on  to  Irish  writers,  especially  to  Patrick's 
own  confession.  We  learn  from  this  document,  '  that  Patrick 
was  born  in  Britain,  and  educated  in  Gaul ;  that  some  time 
after  his  return  home,  he  felt  an  impulse  to  preach  the  gospel 
in  Ireland ;  that  he  was  consecrated  at  home,  and  that  he 
proceeded  immediately  to  the  scene  of  his  ministry.  During 
the  remainder  of  his  life,  he  considered  himself  fixed  in  Ire- 
land by  the  inviolable  bonds  of  duty;  but  occasionally  the 
high  resolves  of  the  apostle  were  weakened  by  the  natural 
yearnings  of  the  man.  I  wished,  he  says,  to  go  to  Britain, 
my  native  country,  and  to  my  parents ;  nay,  also,  to  go  to 
Gaul,  to  visit  my  brethren,  and  to  see  the  face  of  the  holy 
ones  of  my  Lord ;  God  knows  I  wished  it  very  much ;  but 
I  was  detained  by  the  Spirit,  denouncing  to  me,  that  if  I  did 
so,  I  should  be  regarded  as  an  offender.  I  fear  to  lose  the 
labors  which  I  have  sustained  ;  yet  not  I,  but  the  Lord  Christ, 
who  has  commanded  me  to  abide  for  the  remainder  of  my 
life  with  those  among  whom  I  have  come.'  He  desires  to  visit 
Britain  and  his  parents  —  Gaul  and  his  spiritual  brethren ; 
but  of  Italy  or  the  pope,  there  is  no  mention.  The  elder 
Cumian,  the  disciple  and  biographer  of  Columba,  who  wrote 
at  the  close  of  the  sixth,  or  the  beginning  of  the  seventh  cen- 
tury, calls  Patrick  the  first  apostle  of  Ire/and.     Thus  it  ap- 


476  SAINT    PATRICK    HAD  [BOOK  III. 

pears,  that  while  the  papal  writers  make  Palladius  the  first 
apostle,  and  take  no  notice  of  Patrick,  the  Irish  make  Patrick 
the  first,  and  take  no  notice  of  Palladius.  The  hymn  of 
Fiech,  of  the  same  antiquity,  also  opposes  the  Roman  hy- 
pothesis. In  the  first  four  stanzas  we  have  the  parentage  of 
the  apostle,  his  captivity,  and  flight  from  Ireland  ;  then  the 
story  proceeds  as  follows  :  — 

He  traversed  the  whole  of  Albion, 
He  crossed  the  sea :    it  was  a  happy  voyage ; 
And  he  took  up  his  abode  with  German, 
Far  away  to  the  south  of  Armorica, 

Among  the  isles  of  the  Tuscan  sea. 
There  he  abode,  as  I  pronounce. 
He  studied  the  canons  with  German  ; 
Thus  it  is  that  the  churches  testify. 

To  the  land  of  Erin  he  returned, 

The  angels  of  God  inviting  him: 

Often  had  he  seen  in  visions, 

That  he  should  come  once  more  to  Erin. 

'Here  the  route  of  the  apostle  is  traced  for  us  with  the 
accuracy  of  a  map — from  Ireland,  through  Britain,  across 
the  channel,  through  Armorica,  to  the  southeast  corner  of 
Gaul,  on  the  coast  of  which  are  situated  Lerins,  and  some 
other  islands,  the  seats,  in  those  days,  of  collegiate  institu- 
tions. When  his  studies  are  concluded,  he  is  brought  back 
to  Ireland,  and  through  the  sequel  of  the  poem  he  is  repre- 
sented as  continuing  there  for  the  remainder  of  his  life. 
Through  the  whole  piece,  Italy  is  omitted  ;  and,  in  a  narrative 
so  orderly  and  circumstantial  as  this  is,  omission  is  equivalent 
to  exclusion.' 

'  I  now  come  to  the  Cottonian  MS.  This  very  curious  and 
important  document  concurs  entirely  with  the  hymn  of  Fiech. 
It  makes  him  a  student  of  Lerins.  It  says,  that  the  bishops 
German  and  Lupus  nurtured  him  in  sacred  literature ;  that 
they  ordained  him,  and  made  him  the  chief  bishop  of  their 
school  among  the  Irish  and  Britons.  On  the  subject  of  the 
Roman  mission  of  Patrick,  these  documents  maintain  a 
profound  and  eloquent  silence ;  a  direct  contradiction  to  the 
hypothesis  we  cannot  expect  from  them,  without  ascribing  to 
their  authors  the  gift  of  prophecy  ;  but  they  do  what  is  equiv- 
alent,—  they  leave  no  room  for  it.  They  give  us  all  the 
particulars  of  which  we  could  reasonably  expect  to  be  in- 
formed ;  they  tell  us  both  the  place  of  his  birth  and  educa- 
tion; they  state  who  instructed  him,  who  ordained  him,  who 
sent  him  to  preach  in  Ireland,  and,  finally,  they  show,  that 
after  the  commencement  of  his  ministry,  he  never  left  the 


CHAP.  I.]        NO  CONNECTION  WITH  ROME.  477 

island.  On  the  other  hand,  it  has  appeared,  that  the  adherents 
of  Rome  are  as  silent  concerning  Patrick,  as  Patrick  and  his 
disciples  are  with  respect  to  Rome.' 

'  How,  then,  is  the  Roman  hypothesis  sustained,  by  the 
learned  and  zealous  writers  of  whom  I  speak  ?  They  take 
refuge  in  those  obscure  and  recent  legends  which  they  are 
ashamed  to  quote,  when  maintaining  the  existence  of  Patrick, 
and  which,  on  every  other  occasion,  they  reject  with  a  con- 
tempt as  undisguised  as  it  is  unmerited ;  and  yet,  after  all, 
they  cannot  agree.  Drs.  Milner  and  O' Conor  assert,  that 
Patrick  was  ordained  by  Celestine ;  Dr.  Lanigan,  after,  as  he 
declares,  the  labor  and  close  application  of  many  years,  after 
having  collated  every  tract  that  he  could  meet  with,  gives  the 
ordination  to  an  unknown  bishop  of  an  unknown  place ! 
Again,  Dr.  O' Conor  thinks  himself  very  safe,  when  he 
states  that  Patrick  was  not  at  Rome  earlier  than  the  year  402, 
but  Dr.  Lanigan  will  not  allow  him  to  have  been  there  for 
twenty-nine  years  after.  Still  further,  Dr.  Milner  says,  that 
in  the  year  461,  Patrick  went  to  Rome  to  render  an  account 
of  his  ministry  to  the  pope  ;  the  Irishmen,  more  candid  or 
more  wary  than  their  fellow-laborer,  reject  the  account  as  '  a 
fable.'  In  fine,  except  upon  the  one  indispensable  point, 
these  learned  men  oppose  each  other  with  as  little  ceremony 
as  they  controvert  Dr.  Ledwich,  and  in  that  particular  ihey 
reverse  the  natural  order  of  evidence,  they  assume  that  Pat- 
rick must  have  had  a  commission  from  Rome,  and  then  they 
conjecture  when  and  how  he  obtained  it.  Instead  of  deriving 
their  hypothesis  from  facts,  they  rest  their  facts  upon  an  hy- 
pothesis.' l 

1)  See  also  Dr.  Mason's  Primit.  disciple  of  St.  Finian,  of  Clonard, 
Christ,  in  Ireland. —  Equally  absurd  about  520.  If  we  reject  these  author- 
is  the  alleged  Romish  mission  of  Kia-  ities,  we  bestow  on  these  precursors  a 
ran,  Declan,  Ailbe,  and  Ibar,  who  are  longevity  beyond  verisimilitude  ;  if  we 
reputed  to  have  resided  at  Rome  nine  adopt  them,  the  legend  is  more  than 
years,  and  then  to  have  been  conse-  doubtful.  These  teachers,  we  are 
crated  bishops.  But  this  legend  con-  told,  travelled  to  Rome,  and  there  re- 
tains evidence  of  its  own  fabrication,  ceived  ordination.  This  is  incredible, 
What  is  alleged  was  impossible.  '  For  because  Bede  is  an  unexceptionable 
if,'  says  Pr.  Ledwich.  (p.  57,)  '  these  evidence,  that  our  hierarchy  was  ex- 
precursors  of  St.  Patrick  ever  existed,  actly  similar  to  the  British,  and  that 
and  lived  no  longer  than  the  rest  of  we  know  was  independent.  Indepen- 
mankind,  their  age  will  be  found  poste-  dent,  for  the  British  prelates  nobly  op- 
rior  instead  of  being  prior  to  that  of  posed  the  usurpation  of  Augustine, 
our  apostle,  who,  it  is  said,  was  sent  sent  by  pope  Gregory,  and  refused 
hither,  A.  D.  432.  Now  the  annals  of  obedience  to  a  foreign  jurisdiction, 
Ulster  and  Innisfallen,  as  cited  by  consequently  they  would  not  receive 
Ware,  placed  the  death  of  Ibar  in  500,  ordination  from  the  hands  of  stran- 
that  of  Ailbe  in  527,  of  Declan  later,  gers.' 
and  Kiaran,  at  an  advanced  age,  was 


478  ST.  PATRICK  NOT  AN  ARCHBISHOP  OR  PRELATE.  [BOOK  III. 

The  Romish  mission  and  character  of  St.  Patrick  being 
thus  disposed  of,  we  can  have  little  difficulty  in  setting 
aside  his  alleged  archbishopric.  This  is  affirmed  in  the 
canons  edited  among  his  works.  But  Mr.  Moore  himself 
allows,1  that  '  it  was  not  till  the  beginning  of  the  eighth  cen- 
tury, that  the  title  of  archbishop  was  known  in  Ireland.'  This 
title  originated  with  the  establishment  of  Christianity  by  Con- 
stantine.  At  the  Ephesine  council2  in  431,  Cyril,  bishop 
of  Jerusalem,  and  Celestine,  bishop  of  Rome,  were  publicly 
honored  with  this  style.  Before  Theodore,  archbishop  of 
Canterbury,  enjoyed  this  title  in  673,  it  was  unknown  in  Brit- 
ain ;  and  Mabillon  is  confident,  that  few  claimed  or  assumed 
it  before  the  ninth  century.  Neither  was  St.  Patrick  a  pre- 
late.3 '  If,'  asks  Dr.  Ledwich,  '  St.  Patrick  received  his  mis- 
sion from  pope  Celestine,  his  orders  in  the  church  of  Rome 
were  graced  with  the  archiepiscopal  dignity,  formed  an  hier- 
archy and  established  rites  and  ceremonies  from  Roman 
originals,  as  all  his  biographers  boast,  can  the  utmost  stretch 
of  human  ingenuity  assign  a  reason,  why  Cogitosus,  Adam- 
nan,  Cumian,  and  Bede,  have  passed  over  these  interesting 
particulars  unnoticed  ? '  And  that  these  circumstances  afforded 
strong  presumptive  proof  against  the  prelatic  character  of  the 
saint,  is  admitted  by  his  warm  and  zealous  defender,  Mr. 
Stuart.4  '  Now,'  adds  he, '  whatever  negative  argument  against 
the  episcopal  dignity  of  St.  Patrick  may  be  deduced  from 
the  silence  of  Adam  nan,  Cumian,  and  Bede,  on  that  subject? 
it  does  not,  he  thinks,  disprove  his  actual  existence.  So  that, 
even  on  prelatical  evidence  and  decision,  St.  Patrick  was  not 
a  prelate. 

It  is,  therefore,  very  important  to  consider  the  form  of  ec- 
clesiastical polity  introduced  by  Patrick,  or  Patricius.  He 
was,  indeed,  a  bishop,  and  he  appointed  also  many  other 
bishops.  This  we  do  not  deny.  The  mere  fact  of  a  primi- 
tive episcopacy,  we  never  questioned.  And  that,  very  early, 
presiding  presbyters  were  regularly  appointed,  to  whom  the 
name  of  bishop  came  to  be  more  exclusively  applied,  this 
we  also  grant.  But  all  this  might  be,  and  yet  presbyterianism 
—  which  maintains  the  essential  equality  of  ministers  as  to 
order — exist.  All  this  might  be,  and  yet  prelacy,  which 
maintains  the  essential  distinction  of  the  three  orders  of  min- 
isters, be  unknown.  What,  then,  is  it  possible  for  us  to 
know,  were  the  sentiments  of  St.   Patrick  on  this  subject? 

1)  P.  224,  in  Dr.  Mason's  Pr.  Ch.  3)  In  Stuart's    Hist,  of  Armagh. 
p.  33.                                                              Intr.  p.  xviii. 

2)  Br.  Ledwich,  p.  65.  4)  Ibid. 


CHAP.  I.]  ST.    PATRICK    WAS    A    PRESBYTERIAN.  479 

'  St.  Patrick,'  says  Mr.  Stuart,1  '  seems  to  have  exercised  a 
kind  of  patriarchal  power  in  this  infant  church.  He  is  stated 
to  have  ordained  three  hundred  and  sixty-five  bishops,  and 
three  thousand  presbyters,  and  to  have  founded  three  hun- 
dred and  sixty-five  churches.  It  is  manifest,  that  such  a 
multitude  of  prelates  could  not  have  been  of  the  nature  of 
diocesan  bishops  ;  and  it  is  probable  that  one  of  these  digni- 
fied ecclesiastics  was  allotted  by  him  to  each  church.  It 
is,  indeed,  by  no  means  unlikely,  that  they  officiated  in  their 
respective  churches,  at  stated  times,  and  occasionally  acted 
as  itinerant  preachers,  diffusing  the  light  of  the  gospel  from 
district  to  district,  like  their  great  preceptor,  Patrick.  A  pop- 
ulous nation,  from  which  heathenism  was  not  yet  effectually 
banished,  required  active  and  intelligent  missionaries  of  this 
nature.  Besides  these,  the  church  of  Ireland  seems  to  have 
acknowledged  a  species  of  auxiliary  bishop,  denominated 
Comorban,  Combarbo,  or  Cobhanus.  Some  etymologists 
assert,  that  this  name  was  synonymous  with  'partner'  or 
'joint  tenant;'  and  that  he  who  possessed  the  office  acted 
during  the  life  of  the  principal  ecclesiastic,  to  whom  he  was 
attached  as  his  suffragan  and  assistant  bishop.  The  bishops 
of  Armagh  had  various  comorbans,  many  of  whose  names 
are  recorded  in  Ware's  and  in  Colgan's  elaborate  works.  It 
is  probable,  that  many  of  the  three  hundred  and  sixty-five 
bishops  ordained  originally  by  St.  Patrick,  were  of  the  order 
of  comorbans,  &c. ;  at  once  coadjutors,  suffragans,  and  suc- 
cessors elect  to  their  principals.' 

Nothing  could  be  more  satisfactory  than  this  proof  of  the 
certain  presbyterianism  of  the  churches  and  bishops  founded 
by  St.  Patrick.  For  while,  as  Nennius  reports,  Patrick  him- 
self founded2  three  hundred  and  sixty-five  bishoprics  or 
churches,  yet  afterwards  the  number  increased,  says  Bernard; 
so  that,  when  Malachias  went  into  Ireland,  (nearly 'six  hundred 
years  after  Patrick,)  Ann.  1150,  bishops  were  so  multiplied, 
that  one  diocese  was  not  content  with  one  bishop,  but  almost 
every  parish  church  had  its  bishop.3  '  Yea,  there  was  not 
only  one  bishop  in  such  a  little  precinct,  but  more  than  one;4 
not  only  in  cities,  but  even  in  villages,  as  Lafranc  writes  to 
Terlagh,  then  king  in  Ireland,  in  villis  vel  civitatibus  plures 
ordinantur: 5     '  And  their  revenue,'  adds  this  learned  author, 

1)  Hist,  of  Armagh,  ut  supra,  pp.  4)  Usher's  Disc,  on  the  Relig.  of 
615>  618-  the  Anct.  Irish,  ch.  viii. 

2)  Ctarkson's  Primit.  Episcop.  p.  5)  Baron,  ad  an  lOt-y  a.  16;   Ush 
40-  Relig.  of  Irish,  c.  8,  p.  79. 

3)  Bernard,  Vit  Malach. 


480      THE    ANCIENT    IRISH    WERE    PRESBYTERIANS.       [BOOK    III. 

'  was  answerable,  since  some  of  them,  as  Dr.  Heylin  tells  us, 
had  no  other  than  the  pasture  of  two  milch  beasts.'1  This 
last  statement  is  confirmed  by  the  fact,  that,  at  the  council  of 
Nice,2  the  three  delegates  from  Britain  were  constrained, 
through  their  poverty,  to  accept  the  public  allowance  in 
lodging  and  food,  provided  by  the  emperor.  That  St.  Pat- 
rick was  not  regarded  by  the  ministers  in  Ireland  as  having 
any  prelatical  authority  or  office,  is  further  demonstrated  by 
this  historical  report,  that  when  he  came  among  them,  '  he 
was  told  by  St.  Ibar,  that  they  never  acknowledged  the  su- 
premacy of  a  foreigner.'3 

St.  Patrick,  therefore,  was  not  a  papist,  that  is,  a 
Roman  Catholic,  nor  a  prelatist,  but  a  presbvterian 
and  a  protestant.  neither  popery  nor  prelacy  are  the 
religion  of  the  ancient  Irish.  Ireland  is  consecrated  by 
the  genius  of  a  true,  primitive,  apostolical  presbyterianism. 
Popery  in  that  country  is  only  six  hundred  and  sixty-three 
years  old,  and  the  despotism  of  a  foreign  usurping  bishop 
was  then  first  imposed  upon  her  reluctant  and  down-trodden 
children.  Alas!  how  fallen,  how  degraded,  how  enslaved 
are  her  noble  offspring.  '  Sons  of  Ireland ! '  to  reecho  the 
stirring  words  of  one  of  her  own  sons,  '  Awake  from  your 
fatal  sleep !  Awake  to  a  sense  of  your  spiritual  rights,  and 
liberties!  The  God  of  your  primitive  fathers,  who  guided, 
protected,  and  blessed  Ireland  during  the  first  twelve  centu- 
ries, calls  on  you,  and  commands  you  to  awake  from  your 
fatal  sleep!  The  God  of  your  primitive  christian  fathers, 
who  gave  poor  bleeding  Ireland  over,  in  his  wrath,  for  her 
sins,  into  the  hands  of  the  cruel  pope  of  Rome  and  Henry 
II,  now  calls  on  you  to  rouse  up !  Are  not  the  long  and 
mournful  years  of  your  captivity,  of  your  Babylonian  captivity, 
at  last  come  to  an  end  ?  By  the  memory  of  your  dear  native 
land  —  poor,  bleeding  Ireland !  and  by  the  memory  of  the  pure 
ancient  christian  church  of  your  fathers !  and  by  the  mem- 
ory of  the  unnumbered  saints  who  sleep  in  the  bosom  of 
Ireland,  before  popery  had  ever  polluted  her  soil !  By  all 
that  is  solemn,  and  all  that  is  awful  in  time,  and  in  eternity, 
I  beseech  you,  shake  off  the  yoke  of  popery,  and  the  Roman 
catholic  despotism,  which  neither  you,  nor  your  fathers, 
could  bear !  If  you  have  the  blood  of  the  primitive  Irish 
and  Culdees  in  your  veins  !     If  you  have  the  zeal  and  patri- 

1)  Cosmogr.  p.  342.  3)  Lond.  Prot  Journ.  ibid,  p.  199, 

2)  Stillingfl.  pp.   47-109;  Lond.     in  ibid,  p.  22. 
Prot.  Jour.  1832,  p.  253,  in  Dr.  Brown- 
lee,  p.  13. 


CHAP.  I.]  APPEAL    TO    IRISHMEN.  481 

otism  of  St.  Cathaldus,  and  Cormac,  and  St.  Albe,  and  St. 
Dermit,  and  St.  Ibar,  and  St.  Patrick,  in  your  souls ;  if  you 
have  a  spark  of  ancient  Irish  piety,  honor,  and  patriotism, 
arise  in  your  strength  ;  break  asunder  the  chains  of  popery, 
priestcraft,  and  despotism,  and  dash  them  from  you  !  Down 
with  the  ghostly  tyranny  of  the  Italian  despot!  What  right 
has  a  wretched  Roman  priest,  at  Rome,  to  lord  it  over  Irish- 
men, and  over  American  citizens?  The  watchword  is  — 
Christianity  and  Liberty  forever!  Down  with  Popery, 
Priestcraft,  and  Tyranny  !  Down  with  St.  Padraig  ! 
Blessed  be  the  memory  of  St.  Patrick  for  ever!' 


61 


CHAPTER  II. 


THE  ANTIQUITY  OF   PRESBYTERY  CONTINUED. 


§  1.    The  primitive  churches  in  Scotland  were  presbyterian. 

Scotland  was,  at  an  early  period,  chosen  as  the  field  of 
missionary  effort.  Apart  from  all  conjecture,  and  independently 
of  mere  traditionary  evidence,  we  have  reason  to  believe  that 
before  the  second  century  had  run  its  round,  the  religion  of 
the  Cross  had  gained  a  hold  among  not  a  few  of  the  inhab- 
itants of  that  portion  of  the  isles  of  the  west.  Buchanan 
was  led  to  the  opinion  that  Donald  I,  who  reigned  about  the 
beginning  of  the  third  century,  first  received  the  christian 
religion.1  Spotswood  is  of  the  same  opinion,  saying,  'the 
christian  religion  was  first  publicly  received  A.  D.  203.'  He 
adds,  '  yet  was  not  that  the  first  time  when  Christ  was  here 
made  known.  I  verily  think  that  under  Domitian's  persecu- 
tions, some  of  John's  disciples  first  preached  the  gospel  in 

this  kingdom Sure  not  long  after  the  ascension  of  our 

Lord,  at  least  when  the  apostle  St.  John  yet  lived,  the  faith 
of  Christ  was  known  and  embraced  in  divers  places  of  this 
kingdom.'2  With  this  account,  of  a  very  early  proclamation 
of  the  gospel  in  Caledonia,  Buchanan  concurs.  '  The  Scots,' 
says  he,  'were  taught  Christianity  by  the  disciples  of  the 
apostle  John;'  and  'many  christians  of  the  Britons,  fearing 
the  cruelty  of  Domitian,  took  their  journey  into  Scotland ;  of 
whom  many,  famous  both  in  learning  and  integrity  of  life, 
stayed  and  fixed  their  habitation  therein.'3  Tertullian  declares, 
that  in  his  day  the  gospel  had  pierced  into  all  parts  of  the 
world,  and  even  as  far  as  to  Britain,  and  to  those  parts  of 
Britain  to  which  the  Roman  arms  and  strength  had  never 

1)  Hist,  of  Scotland,  B.  iv.  §27,  2)  Alexander     Henderson's    Re- 

vol.  i.  p.  191.  view  and  Consid.  p.  392. 

3)  Hist,  of  Scotland,  lib.  iv.  and  v. 


CHAP.  I  I.J   SCOTLAND  VERY  EARLY  CHRISTIANIZED.       483 

advanced.1  Tertullian  would  here  seem  to  allude  to  that 
part  of  Britain  which  lay  beyond  the  trench  or  wall  erected 
by  the  Roman  emperors,  Hadrian,  Antoninus,  Pius,  and  Seve- 
rus,  that  is,  to  Scotland, 

Roma  sagitifferis  prcetendit  msnia  Scotis. 
Christianity,  therefore,  was  very  probably  made  known  and 
to  some  extent  diffused  in  Scotland,  in  the  second  century. 
It  was,  however,  the  ninth  persecution  under  Aurelian,  and 
the  tenth,  under  Dioclesian,  which  brought  into  Scotland, 
from  divers  provinces  of  the  empire,  many  men  of  God, 
famous  for  learning  and  piety,  by  which  a  more  general 
christianization  of  Scotland  appears  to  have  been  effected.2 
The  time  of  our  conversion  to  the  faith,  is,  therefore,  says  bishop 
Burnet,  reckoned  to  have  been  A.  D.  263. 3  Certain  it  is, 
that  Christianity  was  generally  professed  in  Scotland,  in 
A.  D.  431  ;  since  we  find  Celestine,  bishop  of  Rome,  sending 
Palladius  on  a  spiritual  embassy,  'to  the  Scots  believing  in 
Christ,'  for  that  this  refers  to  the  Scoti,  both  in  Ireland  and 
Caledonia,  is  made  manifest  by  the  fact,  that  Palladius  did 
visit  the  former,  and  died  in  Scotland,  at  Fordoun  in  the 
Mearns.4  St.  Patrick,  also,  who  arrived  in  Ireland  about  the 
same  period,  is  believed,  upon  strong  reasons,  to  have  been  a 
native  of  Scotland,  and  to  have  brought  his  type  of  Chris- 
tianity from  that  country.5  Tn  the  year  A.  D.  563.  the 
celebrated  abbey,  or  rather  theological  college,  was  founded 
in  Scotland,  by  Columba,  at  Iona,  which  continued  to  flour- 
ish for  ages,  as  the  light  of  that  western  world,  and  to  supply 
with  ministers  of  the  gospel  both  Scotland  and  England. 
But  of  this  we  shall  have  occasion  to  speak  fully  hereafter. 

From  the  evidence  thus  adduced,  it  is  incontrovertibly 
plain,  that  Scottish  Christianity  was  planted  and  had  grown 
up  to  a  large  and  spreading  tree,  ages  before  the  time  when 
Rome  claims  to  have  imparted  it.  Between  the  christians  of 
Scotland  and  the  emissaries  and  adherents  of  Rome,  there 
continued  to  be  the  most  uncompromising  opposition,  both  as 
it  regards  doctrine  and  order,  for  many  centuries.  Rather 
than  yield  to  the  Romish  corruptions,  many  of  these  men  of 
God  abandoned  their  property  and  their  homes,  and  became 
exiles  for  conscience  sake.     In  the  7th  century  Clement  and 

1)  Lib.  contr.  Ind.  '  et  Britanno-     App.  p.  33.    See  also  Vidal's  Mosheim, 
rum  inaccessa  Romanis  loca,   Christo     vol.  iii.  p.  6. 

vere  subdita.'  4)  Jamieson's  Hist.  Culd.p.  P. 

2)  Causa  Episcopatus  Hierarch.  5)  Hetherins:ton-s     Hist.    Ch.  of 
Lucifuga.  Edinb.  1706,  pp.  96,  97.             Scotland,  pp.  8,  P. 

3)  Vind.  of  the  Ch.   of  Scotland, 


4S4  THE    PRIMITIVE    SCOTTISH    CHURCHES  [BOOK  III. 

Samson  sharply  rebuked  a  Romish  emissary,  of  the  name 
of  Boniface,  declaring,  '  that  he  and  his  associates  made  it 
their  only  work  and  design  to  seduce  the  people  of  God  from 
their  obedience  to  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  and  draw  them  to 
the  servitude  of  the  bishop  of  Rome.'1  In  the  eighth  cen- 
tury Alcuinus,  Rabanus  Maurus,  Johannes  Scotus,  and  Clau- 
dius Clemens  did  also  detect  and  rebuke  the  growing 
corruptions  of  the  Romish  hierarchy.  The  churches  of 
Scotland  and  Ireland  were  protestant  ten  centuries  before  the 
reformation,  and  accorded,  in  all  doctrinal  points,  with  the 
churches  of  the  reformation.3 

The  form  of  church  government  and  polity,  adopted  by  the 
primitive  church  in  Scotland,  was  presbyterian.  This  fol- 
lows from  the  oriental  origin  to  which  it  has  been  distinctly 
traced,  for  the  same  reasons  as  authenticate  the  eastern  source 
of  British  and  of  Irish  Christianity.4  Boethius  asserts,  that 
the  first  government  of  our  church  was  after  the  method,  and 
conformable  to  the  example,  of  the  church  of  Alexandria,'5 
which  we  have  already  seen  was  most  essentially  presbyte- 
rian. Indeed,  it  would  appear  to  have  been  the  chief  design 
with  which  Palladius  was  sent  to  Scotland,  that  he  might 
introduce  a  prelatical  form  of  government  among  the  Scottish 
and  Irish  christians,  since  it  is  scarcely  possible  that  the 
Pelagian  heresy  could  have  made  any  extensive  progress  in 
these  countries  at  that  time.6  He  is  expressly  denominated 
'their  first  bishop,'  '•primus  episcopasP  Bishop  Burnet 
allows,  that  '  Palladius  is  reckoned  the  first  bishop.'8  '  Palla- 
dius,' says  Buchanan,  'is  judged  the  first  that  set  up  bishops 
in  Scotland ;  for,  until  that  time,  the  churches  were  governed 
without  bishops,  though  with  less  external  pomp  and  splen- 
dor, yet  with  more  simplicity  and  holiness.'9  Palladius,  says 
Boethius,  '  was  the  first  that  exercised  holy  magistracy, 
(prelacy,)  among  the  Scots,  being,  by  the  pope,  created 
bishop.'10     '  Before    Palladius,'    says   Johannes  Major,    '  the 

1)  Causa  Episcop.  Hier.  &c.  ibid,  4)  See  above,  ch.  i. 
p.  98.  5)  Scot.  Hist,  lib.vi. 

2)  Ibid.  6)  Hetherington's    Hist.    Ch.    of 

3)  See  Usher's  Discourse  on  the  Scotl.  p.  8. 

religion   of  the  ancient    Irish.     That  7)  Usher,  Primord.  p.  801,  Jamie- 
the  church  ol   Scotland  was  independ-  son's  Hist,  of  the  Culdees,  pp.  7,  8. 
ent  of  the  Church  in  England,  as  late            S)  Observations  on  the   1st    Can- 
as  the  twelfth  century,  is  demonstra-  on,  p.  33. 
bly   plain  ;  see    Hist,  of  the    Ch.   of            9)  Hist,  of  Scotl.  lib.  iii. 
Scotl.  vol.  i.  pp.  35,  36.     So  also    the           10)  Scot.   Hist.  lib.  vii.  in   Causa 
independence  of  the  Irish  church,  as  Episcop.  &c.p.97. 
late  as  1152,  is  urged  by  Mr.  Palmer. 
On  the  Ch.vol.  i.  p.  549. 


CHAP, 


II.]  AVERE    PRESBYTERIAN.  485 


Scotch  were  nourished  in  the  faith  by  presbyters  and  monks, 
without  bishops.'1  '  The  Scots,'  says  Fordoun,  in  his  Chron- 
icle, 'before  the  coming  of  Palladius, had  presbyters  only,  for 
their  instructors  in  the  faith  and  administrators  of  sacra- 
ments.'2 So  irresistible  is  the  evidence  on  this  subject,  that 
even  the  Romish  annalist  Baronius,  under  the  year  A.  D. 
404,  admits,  '  that  the  Scots  received  their  first  bishop  from 
pope  Celestine,'3  and  the  venerable  Bede  also  testifies,  'that 
Palladius  was  sent  to  the  Scots,  as  their  first  bishop,  from 
Celestine,  the  pope  of  Rome.'4  Stillingfleet  authenticates 
the  conclusion  of  previous  inquirers,  and  is  of  opinion  that 
the  Scots  and  Goths  had  no  bishop.5 

Neither  is  this  most  plain  and  positive  testimony,  to  the 
original  presbyterianism  of  the  church  of  Scotland,  opposed 
by  any  contrary  evidence.  No  succession  of  prelates  prior 
to  the  time  spoken  of,  nor  for  a  longtime  after,  can  be  shown, 
or  is  even  pretended.  Nor  does  any  historian  attempt  to 
trace  regular  dioceses  higher  up  than  the  eleventh  century.9 
The  most  baseless  assumption  of  the  existence  of  an  order  of 
bishops  is,  on  the  contrary,  continually  made,  without  reason 
or  proof,  and  in  open  contrariety  to  the  facts  in  the  case.  We 
are,  therefore,  fairly  entitled  to  conclude,  that  the  primitive 
church,  in  Scotland,  was  presbyterian  and  not  prelatic,  and  in 
this  conclusion,  we  shall  be  most  strongly  confirmed  by  an 
examination  of  the  character  and  government  of  the  Culdees. 
To  this,  therefore,  we  will  now  proceed. 

§  2.     The  government  of  the  ancient  Culdees,  of  Ireland  and 
of  Scotland,  was  presbyterian. 

From  our  familiarity  with  the  history  and  doings  of 
Romish  monks,  we  are  in  great  danger,  when  we  hear  of  the 
Culdee  monks,  of  doing  their  memory  great  injury.  We 
know  that  the  monasteries  of  Europe,  in  latter  ages,  have 
been  the  habitations  of  fraternities  of  ignorant,  voluptuous, 
lazy,  lying  mendicants;  and  we  are  in  danger  of  imagining 
the  Culdees  were  a  somewhat  similar  class  of  men.  Nothing 
could  be  more  erroneous,  as  they  were  in  every  respect 
different  from  Romish  monks.  They  supported  themselves 
by  their  own  labor,  they  were  married  men,  surrounded  by 

1)  Lib.  ii.  c.  ii.  in  ibid,  and  Burnet  5)  Iren.  part  ii.  ch.vii. 

Obs.  on  1st.  Canon,  p.  33.  6)  See    Jamieson's    Hist,  of  the 

2)  Lib.  iii.  c.  8,  in  ibid,  and  Burnet     Culd.  pp.  113,  114,   140,  and    Brough- 
ibid.  ton's  Eccl.  Diet.  p.  163,  fol.  i.     Spots- 

3)  In  CausaEpiscopatus,&c.p.98.     wood's  Hist.  p.  4,  in  Jameson's  Fund: 

4)  Eccl.  Hist.  lib.  i.  of  the  Hier.  p.  40. 


486  THE    ORIGIN    OF    THE    CULDEES.  [BOOK  III. 

their  families,  and  were  often  succeeded  by  their  own  sons. 
This  most  interesting  body  of  ecclesiastics  are  called  Cul- 
dees,  and  sometimes  Kyllidei,  Colidei,  and  Kelidei.  Many 
derivations  are  given  of  this  denomination,1  but  the  most 
rational  and  probable,  is,  that  which  makes  it  a  compound  of 
Keila,  a  servant,  and  Dia,  God.2  When  the  Culdees  first 
made  their  appearance  is  very  uncertain.  They,  themselves, 
constantly  affirmed,  that  they  had  received  their  modes  of 
worship  from  the  disciples  of  John,  the  apostle,  which  would 
connect  them  with  the  churches  in  Gaul.3  That  there  were  a 
considerable  number  of  christians  in  Ireland,  at  the  end  of  the 
second  century,  Jamieson  thinks  we  may  safely  assume4 ;  and 
that  these  were  found  under  the  character  of  Culdees,  early 
in  the  fourth  century,  is  affirmed  by  some  writers.5 

However  this  may  be,  they  certainly  existed  in  an  organ- 
ized form,  in  Ireland,  A.  D.  540.  The  founder  of  these  soci- 
eties, as  is  generally  believed,  was  Columba,6  a  famous  Irish 
divine.  This  remarkable  man  was  born  in  the  year  521,  and 
was  a  lineal  descendant,  in  the  sixth  generation,  from  king 
Nial,  of  the  nine  hostages.  About  the  twenty-eighth  year  of 
his  age,  he  founded  the  monastery  of  Dairmagh,  where  he 
resided  a  short  time.  Zealous  for  the  diffusion  of  Christianity, 
he  passed  over  to  Albanian  Scotia,  with  twelve  companions 
of  his  mission,  to  convert  the  Picts.  In  the  year  563,  he 
landed  at  the  isle  of  Iona  or  Hii,  which,  if  the  annals  of 
Ulster  and  of  Tighernach  be  correct,  was  given  to  him  by 
Connal,  the  son  of  Comghal,  king  of  the  Dalredian  Scots. 
This  beautiful  island  was  originally  denominated  I,  Hi,  Eo, 
or  Aoi,  and  afterwards  latinized  into  Iona.  Here  Columba 
established  a  Culdean  monastery,  famous  in  the  annals  of 
British  isles.7 

Too  much  importance  cannot  be  attached  to  the  investiga- 
tion of  the  ecclesiastical  polity  of  the  Culdees,  in  this  argu- 
ment. For,  while  they  always  laid  claim  to  the  character  of 
the  true,  primitive,  and  apostolical  church  of  Christ  in  Eng- 
land,8 they  were,  as  Ledwich  informs  us,  looked  up  to  as  the 

1)  See    Jamieson's    Hist,  of   the  4)  Hist,  of  Culd.  p.  6. See  above. 
Culdees,  Edinb.  1811,  4to.  ch.  i.    Led-  5)  Do.  p.  6. 

wich's  Antiq.  of  Ireland,  p.  102.  6)  Stuart's  Hist.  p.  624. 

2)  Jamieson's  do.  p.  4,  and  Stuart  7)  See   also  Ledwich's  Antiq.  of 
Hist,  of  Armagh,  p.  624.     This  is  the     Ireland,  p.  103,  &c. 

opinion     of    Goodall,     O'Brien,    and  8)   See  Jamieson's  Hist.  pp.  6, 221 

Reilly.  -223,239,  243,  351,  353.      Ledwich's 

3)  Ledwich,  Antiq.  pp.  55,  56.         Antiq.  pp.  55,  56. 


CHAP.   II.]     HIGH    VALUE    OF    THE    CULDEE    TESTIMONY.  487 

depositaries  of  the  original  national  faith.1  Giraldus  Cam- 
brenia  describes  theirs  as  '  the  ancient  religion,  in  1185.' 2  It 
is  also  probable,  that,  both  in  Ireland  and  Scotland,  and  in 
the  territory  to  the  south  as  well  as  the  north  of  the  Grampian 
hills,  they  came,  in  course  of  time,  to  form  exclusively,  or  al- 
most exclusively,  the  national  clergy.3  A  great  part  of  the 
north  of  England  was  converted  by  missionaries  from  Iona, 
who  were  constituted  bishops  in  that  country.  When  it  serves 
his  purpose  against  the  Romanists,  Mr.  Palmer  can  allow,  that 
the  '  Anglo-Saxons  were,  for  the  most  part,  converted  by  holy 
bishops,  (that  is,  presbyters,)  and  missionaries  from  Ireland,'4 
for  Augustine,  as  Mason  shows,  '  was  not  the  apostle  of  the 
Britons,  not  of  the  Scots,  not  of  the  Picts,  not  of  the  Angles, 
not  of  the  Saxons,  not  of  all  the  Jutes,  but  of  Kent  only.'  5 
And  hence,  it  is  apparent,  that  the  determination  of  their 
views  of  church  government  will  go  far  to  settle  the  ques- 
tion of  the  original  character  of  British  Christianity. 

If,  as  Gordon  and  others  think,6  Christianity  was  first  intro- 
duced into  Ireland  in  the  fourth  century,  then  is  the  supposi- 
tion, that  the  Culdees  exhibited  the  original  faith  and  polity 
of  the  church,  the  more  strongly  probable.  That  they  were 
the  chief  instruments  in  its  propagation  appears  from  the 
following  facts.  The  kingdom  of  Mercia,7  containing  the 
counties  of  Chester,  Nottingham,  Derby,  Stafford,  Salop, 
Northampton,  Leicester,  Lincoln,  Huntingdon,  Rutland,  War- 
wick, Worcester,  Oxford,  Gloucester,  Buckingham,  Bedford, 
Hereford,  and  part  of  Hertford,  was  converted  to  Christianity 
by  Finanns,  Diuma,  Ceollach,  and  Frumhere,  all  Irish  Culdee 
presbyters.8  The  kingdom  of  Northumberland,  which  con- 
tained York,  Lancaster,  and  the  northern  parts  of  Eng- 
land, and  extended  a  considerable  way  into  Scotland,  was 
chiefly  converted  by  Aidan,  another  Irish  Culdee  presbyter. 
Paulinus  had  been  sent  on  this  mission  by  Justus  of  Canterbury, 
successor  of  Augustine,  but  was  soon  obliged  to  retire,  and 
paganism  resumed  its  sway,  until  Aidan  arrived,  under  hap- 
pier auspices,  and  converted  the  nation.  9  Essex,  Middlesex, 
and  Hertford,  were  converted  by  Cedd,  another  Irish  Culdee 

1)  Antiq.  p.  94.  iv.  c.  4.     See  also  Dr.  Ledwich's  An- 

2)  Apud  Jamieson's  Hist.  p.  358.     tiquities  of  Ireland,  pp.  109,  110. 

3)  Pictorial  Hist,  of  England,  vol.  6)  Hist,  of  Ireland,  vol.  i.  28. 

i.  p.  244.  7)  See  Palmer's  Origines  Litur- 

4)  On  the  Ch.  vol.  i.  442.  gica?,  vol.  ii.  p.  250. 

5)  Ibid,  in  Vind.  Eccl.  Angl.  lib.  8)  Beda,  Historia,  lib.  iii.  c.  21. 

9)  Ibid,  lib.  iii.  c.  3,  5,  6. 


488  HIGH    VALUE    OF    THE    CULDEE    TESTIMONY.    [BOOK  III. 

presbyter,  after  they  had  relapsed  into  paganism.1  The  Picts 
and  Scots  of  Scotland  were  converted  by  Columba,  an  Irish- 
man, first  abbot  of  Iona,  in  the  sixth  century.2 

The  character  of  the  Culdees  has  never  been  defamed  even 
by  their  bitterest  enemies.  Thus  Bede,  while  indignant  at  their 
rejection  of  the  authority  of  the  Roman  bishop,  testifies,  3 
'  Whatever  he  was  himself,'  says  he,  '  we  know  of  him  for 
certain,  that  he  left  successors  renowned  for  much  continence, 
the  love  of  God,  and  regular  observance.  It  is  true,  they 
followed  uncertain  rules  in  the  observation  of  festival,  as 
having  none  to  bring  them  the  synodical  decrees  for  the  keep- 
ing of  Easter,  by  reason  of  their  being  seated  so  far  from 
the  rest  of  the  world ;  therefore  only  practising  such  works 
of  charity  and  piety  as  they  could  learn  from  the  prophetical, 
evangelical,  and  apostolical  writings.'  Their  warmest  pane- 
gyrist could  not  pronounce  a  finer  eulogium  on  the  purity  of 
their  faith  and  integrity  of  their  practice.  The  English  writ- 
ers also,  although  it  was  decreed  at  the  council  of  Ceale-hyth, 
A.  D.  S16,  that  no  Scottish  priest  should,  for  the  future,  exer- 
cise his  functions  in  England, 'nevertheless,4  bear  testimo- 
ny to  the  purity  of  their  lives,  and  the  zeal  of  their  apostolic 
labors,  while  they  denounce  their  exclusive  devotedness  to 
the  authority  of  scripture,  their  rejection  of  the  Romish  cere- 
monies, doctrines,  and  traditions,  the  nakedness  of  their  forms 
of  worship,  and  the  republican  character  of  their  ecclesiasti- 
cal government.'  They  were,  says  Ledwich,  most  highly 
respected  by  the  people,  for  their  sanctity  and  learning.5  The 
very  name  of  Culdee  acquired  such  sanctity,  and  such  a  de- 
gree of  authority  among  them,  that,  as  Boece  relates,  even 
when  the  entire  suppression  of  their  order  was  most  anxious- 
ly sought,  '  all  priests,  almost  to  our  own  times,  were  com- 
monly designed  without  distinction,  Culdees,  that  is,  wor- 
shippers of  God.'6 

Of  the  care  with  which  they  were  trained  to  be  the  guardians 
of  learning,  and  instructers  of  the  people,  we  may  form  some 
idea  from  the  fact,  that  eighteen  years  of  study  were  frequent- 
ly required  of  them  before  they  were  ordained.7     As  wit- 

1)  Beda,  Historia,  lib.  iii.  c.  22.  4)  Pictorial  Hist,  of  England,  vol. 

2)  Ibid,  lib.  iii.  c.  4.     See  also  Dr.    i.  p.  245. 

Henry's  Hist.  5)  Antiq.  p.  94,  107. 

3)  Eccl.  Hist.  1.  iii.  c.  4,  p.  131,  6)  Seein  Jamieson's  Hist.of  Culd. 
ed.  1S40.     Nearly  all  this  book  is  oc-     p.  249. 

pied  with  the  history  and  praise  of  7)  Pictorial  Hist,  of  England,  vol. 

Culdeeism,  in  one  form  or  another.  i.  p.  229.     See  also  Jamieson's    Hist. 

Culd.  pp.  198,  202,  229,  236,  237,  292. 


CHAP.  II.]  THE  CULDEES  WERE  IN  FACT  PROTESTANTS.    489 

nesses,  therefore,  they  are  most  competent  to  give  important 
testimony,  not  only  to  the  ancient,  but  also  to  the  apostolical 
or  scriptural  polity. 

Being  indoctrinated  and  well  equipped  in  the  panoply  of 
truth,  by  eighteen  years  of  study  —  and  inspired  with  the 
zeal  of  their  founder  —  they  devoted  their  efforts,  not  only  to 
the  evangelization  of  their  own  country,  but  of  others  also. 
They  became  adventurous  missionaries,  to  fields  the  most 
dangerous  and  remote.  They  converted  the  heathen,  and 
established  and  confirmed  the  wavering  christians.  They 
taught  the  use  of  letters  to  the  Saxons  and  Normans.  They 
converted  the  Picts.  Burgundy,  Germany,  and  other  coun- 
tries, received  their  instructions,  and  Europe  rejoiced  in  the 
communicated  blessings.1 

We  have  said,  that  the  Culdees  were  protestant,  as  it 
regards  the  corrupt  doctrines  and  practices  peculiar  to  the 
Romish  church  at  that  time.  The  extent  to  which,  in  perfect 
agreement  with  our  presbytcrian  standards,  they  were  thus 
protestant,  is  remarkable,  and  renders  their  testimony  on  the 
subject  of  church  polity  peculiarly  interesting  to  every  lover 
of  God's  house  and  order.  They  maintained  the  exclusive 
authority  of  scripture  as  a  rule  of  faith.2  They  rejected  the 
Romish  doctrines,  ceremonies,  and  traditions.3  They  did 
not  believe  in  auricular  confession  ;4  neither  did  they  do  pen- 
ance, receive  confirmation,  or  admit  the  heresy  of  celiba- 
cy and  the  sacramental  efficacy  of  priestly  matrimony.5  In 
common  with  all  the  northern  Picts  and  Scots,  they  differed 
from  the  Romish  practice  in  the  observance  of  Easter.  6 
Their  offices  were  Gallican  and  not  Roman.7     They  rejected 

1)  Leland's  Hist,  of  Ireland,  vol.  vi.    V.  Sibbald's  Hist,  of  Fife,  pp.  177, 

i.  p.  22.     Pictorial  Hist,  of  Engl.  vol.  178.     Note. 

i.  229.    Jameson,  p.  100,  &c.     The  in-  2)  Pict.  Hist,  of  Engl.  vol.  i.  245. 

habitants  of  Bretagne,  themselves  of  a  Usher's  Relig.  of  the  Ar.ct.  Irish  and 

Celtic   race,  (Sibbald,  in  Jameson,  p.  Brit.  Lond.  1687,  ch.  i. 

35,)  were  converted  by  the  Irish  or  3)  Pict.  Hist.   Engl.  vol.  i.  245. 

Scots  of  these  days,  and  followed  their  Jamieson,  p.  29. 

customs,  and  this  among  the  rest,  till  4)  Alcuin,  Epist.  26.    V.  Stuart's 

it  was  abolished  by  Hildebert,  arch-  Diss.  p.  627,  and  Jamieson,  pp.  32,  33, 

bishop    of   Tours,   in    his    provincial  35,  136,  203,  204,  216,  238. 

council,  in   1127.     In  the  end   of  the  5)  See  authorities  in  Stuart  Diss, 

same  century  or  beginning  of  the  next,  pp.  622,  623,  627,  and  Jamieson,  pp.  206, 

Giraldus  Cambrensis,  a  zealous  cath-  216. 

olic  priest,  complains  (of  it)  as  one  of  6)  Ibid,  627.     Jamieson,  p.   199. 

the   disgraces   of   Wales,   (where,   as  Usher,  ibid,  ch.  ix. 

well  as  in  Ireland,  Culdees  remained  7)  Ledwich,  p.  112.  Jamieson,  p. 

till  his  time,)  that  sons  got  the  church-  214.  On  the  differences  between  these 

es  after  their  fathers,  by  succession,  and  offices,  see    full    account  in    Stilling- 

not  by  election,  possessing  and  pollut-  fleet's    Orig.    Brit.      Usher  ut   supra, 

ing  the  church  of  God,  by  inheritance,  ch.  iv. 
Keith,  Preface.    Pink.  (Inquiry,)  part 

62 


490       THE    CULDEES    WERE    IN    FACT    PROTESTANTS.    [BOOK   III. 

also  authoritative  absolution,  and  confessed  to  God  alone, 
as  believing  God  alone  could  forgive  sins.1  They  adminis- 
tered baptism  in  any  water,  and  without  the  superstitious 
ceremonies  of  the  Romish  order.  2  This  is  confirmed  by 
Lanfranc,  archbishop  of  Canterbury,  who  says  they  did  not 
use  consecrated  chrism.3  They  opposed  also  the  doctrine 
of  the  real  presence.4  They  withstood  the  idolatrous  wor- 
ship of  the  Romanists.  Culdean  churches  were  dedicated 
to  the  holy  Trinity,  and  not  to  the  blessed  virgin,  or  any  other 
saints.5  They  neither  prayed  to  dead  men,  nor  for  them.  6 
The  service  for  the  dead,  the  Irish  never  practiced  till  they 
were  obliged  to  do  it,  by  the  council  of  Cashel,  convoked  by 
order  of  Henry  II,  in  1172. 7  The  Culdees  were  also  ene- 
mies to  the  doctrine  of  works  and  of  supererogation,  and 
held,  as  Claudius  teaches,  to  the  doctrines  of  justification  by 
faith  only,  of  predestination,  and  grace. s  Their  whole  manner 
of  celebrating  divine  ordinances  was  peculiar  and  opposed 
to  the  Romish.  They  were,  therefore,  objected  to  on  the 
ground  of  the  nakedness  of  their  forms  of  worship.9  They 
paid  no  respect  to  holy  relics  or  to  the  mass.10  They  would 
not  receive  Romish  ordination.11  They  were  more  willing 
to  sacrifice  their  property  than  to  receive  the  '  canonical 
rites  according  to  the  custom  of  the  Roman  and  apostol- 
ical church.' 12  Bede  also  testifies,  that  this  difference  not 
only  affected  the  question  of  Easter,  but  that  they  held  '  a 
great  many  other  things  contrary  to  ecclesiastical  purity 
and  peace.'13  This  charge  is  repeated  in  the  register  of  St. 
Andrews,  where  it  is  said,  '  that  those  called  Culdees,  lived 
more  according  to  their  own  opinion  and  the  tradition  of  men, 
than  according  to  the  statutes  of  the  holy  fathers.'14 

1)  Toland  in  Jamieson,  p.  205.  marks,  taught  by  the    Culdees,  and 

2)  Bede,  Hist.  lib.  xi.  c.  14.  Sib-  since  the  doctrines  and  forms  of  the 
bald's  Fife,  p.  169,  in  Jamieson,  pp.  churches  in  Ireland  and  Scotland  were 
205,200.  similar.     (Hist,  of  Culdees,  p.  206.)  _ 

3)  In  Jamieson,  p.  206.  Usher's  9)  Jamieson,  p.  213.  Sibbald  in 
Rel.  of  Anc.  Irish  and  Brit.  4to.  Lond.  ibid.  Pict.  Hist,  of  Engl.  vol.  i.  245. 
1687,  ch.  v.  They  opposed  set  forms.     See  Jamie- 

4)  Sedulius  in  Jamieson,  pp.  206,  son,  p.  244. 

207.  10)  Jamieson,  pp.  214-216.  Led- 

5)  Dalrymple,  Spotswood,  &c.  in  wich  Antiq.  p.  112. 
Jamieson,  pp.  207,  208.  11)  Jamieson,  p.  227. 

6)  Toland  in  ibid,  209.  Usher  as  12)  Bede,  Hist.  lib.  v.  19.  Jamie- 
above,  ch.  iii.  son,  p.  227. 

7)  Toland  in  ibid,  p.  210.  13)  Hist.  lib.  v.  c.  18.  Jamieson, p. 

8)  See  in  Jamieson,  p.  212,  and  229. 

Tolland  in  ibid.     Usher  as  above,  ch.  14)  Excerpt  Reg.  in  Pinkerton's 

ii.     Usher's  work,  though  not  profess-  Inq.  npud  Jamieson,  pp.  229, 230.     See 

edly  in  elucidation  of  the  opinions  of  also  the  similar  charge  of  Richard  of 

the  Culdees,  is  yet  applicable  in  proof,  Hexham.     Ibid,  p.  230. 
since  the  Irish  were,  as  Jamieson  re- 


CHAP  II.]      THE    CULDEES    ABJURED    EVERY  THING    ROMISH.    491 

When  Boniface  was  sent  from  Rome,  in  order,  if  possible, 
to  bring  the  Scots  to  a  full  obedience  and  conformity  to 
Rome,  he  was  opposed  by  several  of  the  Scots  Culdees, 
namely,  by  Clemens  and  Samson,  who  openly  withstood  him 
and  his  design,  as  tending  only  to  bring  men  into  subjection 
to  the  pope,  and  slavery  to  Rome,  by  withdrawing  them  from 
obedience  unto  Christ.  They  charged  the  Romanists  with 
being  corrupters  of  Christ's  doctrine.1  Such  being  their  dis- 
cordant sentiments,  it  may  be  expected  that  ihe  Romanists 
and  the  Culdees  regarded  each  other  with  no  greater  love 
than  do  their  successors,  the  Romanists  and  the  protestants  of 
the  present  time.  The  Culdees,  both  in  Ireland  and  in  Scot- 
land, refused  to  hold  any  religious  communion  or  intercourse 
with  the  Romanists.  ~  According  to  Bede  they  esteemed  the 
Romish  system  '  as  of  no  account,  and  held  no  more  commu- 
nication with  its  abettors  than  with  the  heathen.' 3 

Great,  therefore,  was  the  antipathy  with  which  these  rival 
claimants  to  the  veneration  and  support  of  the  British  nation, 
regarded  one  another.  Entrenched  in  the  love,  honor,  and 
confidence  of  the  people  at  large,  the  Culdees  long  and  suc- 
cessfully resisted  the  crushing  despotism  of  the  Roman  church. 
On  the  other  hand,  every  possible  means  were  employed,  by 
that  tyrannous  hierarchy,  for  the  suppression  of  an  order  of 
men,  which  all  along  presented  such  an  insurmountable  bar- 
rier to  her  arbitrary  encroachments.  Into  the  history  of  that 
gradual  and  stealthy  advancement  of  the  Romish  claims,  we 
cannot  enter.  They  may  be  found  in  Mr.  Jamieson's  most 
interesting  history  of  the  ancient  Culdees.4  It  was  no  easy 
matter,  to  eradicate  a  reverence  founded  on  solid  piety,  ex- 
emplary charity,  and  superior  learning;  or  to  commit  sudden 
violence  on  characters  distinguished  by  such  qualities.  The 
Romish  emissaries  were,  therefore,  obliged  to  exert  all  their 
cunning  to  remove  those  favorable  prejudices.  Where  force 
could  not  secure  their  purposes,  seduction  often  prevailed.5 
The  Culdees  were,  therefore,  in  all  possible  cases,  induced  to 
take  offices  and  preferments.6      Foreign  prelates  were   also 

1)  Jamieson's  Hist.  pp.  236-240,  treated  them.  Jamieson,  pp.  217  218, 
where  will  be  found  a  full  vindication  223,  251,  290,  230.  They  retorted  the 
of  their  character,  and  of  the  true  faith  charge  on  the  Romanists.  See  ibid,  pp. 
of  this  early  martyr  to  protestant  prin-  221  -  223.  The  Romanists  questioned 
cipies         J  the  validity  of  their  orders,  ibid,  pp. 

2)  See  proof  in  Jamieson,  pp.  220  22G,  233.  They  would  not  receive 
_221.  Romish  orders,  p.  227. 

3)  Hist.  lib.  ii.  xx.  in  Jamieson,  4)  See  ch.  xii.  xiii. 

p.  222.     They  mutually  regarded  each  5)  Ledwich,  AnUq.p.  113. 

other  as  sect's.     Thus  the   Romanists  6)  Jamieson,  p.  248 


492  THE  MODERN  HISTORY  OF  THE   CULDEES.         [BOOK  III. 

introduced,  or  such  as  had  been  educated  abroad,  to  the 
exclusion  of  natives.1  Episcopal  sees  were  multiplied.2 
The  canons  regular,  as  a  permanent  order  of  ministers, 
devoted  to  the  interests  of  the  church,  were  established.3 
Political,  and  every  other  influence,  was  brought  to  bear 
against  them.  They  were  defamed  in  their  character.  They 
were  deprived  of  their  privileges.  They  were  dispossessed 
of  their  property.4  They  were  driven  from  one  retreat  after 
another,  until  at  length  their  light  was  extinguished,  by  the 
wide-spreading  and  gross  darkness,  which  covered  the  nations 
of  the  earth. 

Notwithstanding  the  great  decline  of  their  power,  there  con- 
tinued to  be  monks,  if  not  abbots,  of  Hii,  at  least  till  the  year 
1203.5  Culdees  were  still  found  in  existence,  as  late  as  the  be- 
ginning of  the  fourteenth  century.6  The  claim  of  superiority,  on 
the  part  of  the  monastery  of  Hii,  was  acknowledged,  even  in 
Ireland,  so  late  as  the  tenth  century,7  for  it  was  not  till  the 
eleventh  century,  that  Ireland  was  completely  subdued  to  the 
Roman  authority.8  And  although,  wherever  the  influence  of 
Rome  prevailed,  the  Culdees  were  removed,  as  the  greatest  ob- 
stacles to  the  progress  of  corruption,  yet  archbishop  Usher  tells 
us,  that '  at  the  greater  churches  of  Ulster,  as  at  Cluaninnis  and 
Daminnis,  and  principally  at  Armagh,  in  his  own  memory, 
there  were  priests  called  Culdees,  who  celebrated  divine  service 
in  the  choir,  their  president  being  called  prior  of  the  Culdees, 
and  acting  as  prsecentor.' 9  They  continued,  but  in  a  corrupt- 
ed and  debased  condition,  to  retain  their  name  and  some 
lands,  even  so  late  as  the  year  1625.10  The  Culdees  thus 
arose,  upon  the  British  isles,  as  the  day-spring  from  on  high, 
in  the  dark  night  of  their  cruel  and  horrid  superstitions.  They 
continued  to  shine  with  greater  or  less  brilliancy,  and  to  guide 
the  travellers  to  Zion  on  their  heaven-ward  journey,  until,  at  the 
reformation,  the  Sun  of  righteousness  broke  through  the  gath- 
ered clouds,  in  the  fulness  of  his  noontide  splendor.  Popery, 
like  some  huge  body,  had,  by  its  revolutions,  finally  succeeded 

1)  Jamieson,  p.  250.  9)  Primord.  p.  354  ;  in  Jamieson, 

2)  Ibid,  p.  249.  p.  357.     Giraldus   Cambrensis,  in  the 

3)  Ibid,  pp.  251,  252,  &c.  year  11S5,  in    describing:  the   island 

4)  On  the  number  of  their  estab-  Monaincha,  speaks  of 'a  chapel  where- 
lishments,  see  Jamieson,  p.  182,  and  in  a  few  monks,  called  Culdees,  de- 
Stuart's  History,  p.  62S.  voutly  serve  God.'     This  same  writer 

5)  Jamieson,  p.  301.  says, '  the  isle  of  Bardsey  (in  Wales) 

6)  Sir  James  Dalrymple  in  Jami-  is  inhabited  by  religious  monks,  quos 
eson,  p. 321.  Coelecolas  vel  Culideos  (Culdees)  vo- 

7)  Jamieson,  p.  356.  cant.'     In  Jamieson,  pp.  358, 359. 

8)  Ibid,  p.  358;  Ledwich,  p.  96.  10)   Gordon's  Hist,  of  Ireland,  vol. 

i.  p.  54. 


CHAP.  II.]   THE  POLITY  OF  TUT.  CULDEES  TRESBYTERIAN.   493 

in  eclipsing  from  our  view  the  glorious  gospel  of  ihe  bless- 
ed God.  Through  its  hostile  agency,  the  Culdees,  the 
primitive  and  apostolic  teachers  of  the  faith,  in  England,  Ire- 
land, and  Scotland,  were  driven  into  the  wilderness,  or  utterly 
destroyed.  The  powers  of  darkness  were  thus,  seemingly, 
established  in  their  ghostly  tyranny,  and  a  long,  hopeless  night 
of  servitude  and  degradation,  awaited  the  subjugated  church 
of  God.  But  in  this  very  century,  the  fourteenth,  Renatus 
Lolardus1  appeared  in  France,  and  Wicklifte  in  England. 
Tlnnce  arose  the  Lollards,  (that  is,  praisers  of  God,)  who 
were  thus  denominated,  in  ridicule,  by  a  name  really  expressive 
of  their  true  character ;  and  after  them  the  reformers.  The  chain 
of  true  apostolical  succession,  which  had  been  handed  down 
through  ages  of  suffering  and  toil,  was  thus  again  fastened  to 
the  rock  of  ages.  Here,  says  Mr.  Jamieson,'2  we  have  a  singu- 
lar proof  of  the  providence  of  God,  in  preserving  the  truth  in 
our  native  country,  even  during  the  time  that  the  man  of  sin 
was  reigning,  with  absolute  authority,  over  the  other  nations  of 
Europe  ;  and  in  transmitting  some  of  its  most  important  arti- 
cles, at  least,  nearly  to  the  time  of  its  breaking  forth  with  re- 
newed lustre  at  the  reformation. 

We  have  entered  into  these  particulars,  concerning  the  Cul- 
dees, because  there  is  a  very  general  ignorance  as  to  their  real 
character ;  their  number ;  their  extent ;  their  duration  ;  and 
their  influence.  We  now  proceed  to  the  inquiry  more  imme- 
diately before  us,  to  wit :  the  character  of  that  ecclesiastical 
polity,  established  among  the  Culdees.  Was  it  prelatical,  or 
was  it  presbyterian  ?  Many  will  be  found  ready  to  sustain 
both  the  affirmative  and  negative  on  this  question.  We  af- 
firm, that,  while  in  its  associated  rules  or  incidental  circum- 
stances it  was  peculiar;  in  all  that  is  essential  to  presbyterian- 
ism,  as  far  as  it  is  involved  in  the  present  controversy,  it  was 
presbyterian. 

That  the  polity  of  the  Culdees  was  not  presbyterian,  is  urg- 
ed by  Lloyd,  bishop  of  St.  Asaph,  Dr.  Ledwich,  and  others, 
and  by  Collier,  in  his  Ecclesiastical  History.  On  opening  his 
work  this  last  author  declares,  that,  '  as  to  the  exception  of  the 
Culdees,  he  had  shown  it  altogether  unserviceable '  to  the  mod- 
el of  Geneva,  or  the  kirk  of  Scotland.'3  But,  on  turning  to  his 
history,4  the  only  disproof  he  offers,  is  the  declaration  of  Bede, 
that  there  were  more  bishops  than  one,  at  the  monastery  of 
Hye.      But  who  were  these  bishops  ?       They  were  no  more 

1)  Burnt  as  a  heretic,  in  1322,  at  3)  Pref.vol.  i. 

Cologne.  4)  B.  ii.  cent.  vii.  vol.  i.  p.  95,  fol. 

2)  Hist,  of  Culdees,  p.  322.  ed. 


494  THE  POLITY  OF  THE  CULDEES        [BOOK  III. 

than  the  pastors  of  some  certain  place  or  town,  who  were  sub- 
ject to  'the  assembly  of  the  presbyters,'  constituting  the  sen- 
ate, council,  or  synod.  Bede  testifies  expressly,  that  the  head 
of  the  whole  body  was  '  a  monk  and  a  presbyter,  but  no  bish- 
op.'1 This  assembly  of  presbyters,  with  this  presbyter  presi- 
dent, or  moderator,  'made  the  bishops.'-  The  Culdean bish- 
ops had  nothing  more  than  presbyterian  ordination,  and  were, 
therefore,  presbyters  destined  to  a  special  work.  Of  course 
they  could  confer  no  other  order  than  they  possessed,  and  all 
ordained  by  them,  or  with  their  assistance,  let  them  be  called 
bishops,  or  archbishops,  could  have  been  no  more,  as  to  order, 
than  presbyters.  Now  Columba,  though  a  presbyter,  ordain- 
ed bishops  in  Ireland.  According  to  Fordoun,  '  he  confirmed 
and  consecrated  all  the  Irish  bishops  of  his  time.'3  He  is  be- 
lieved in  Ireland,  to  have  established  there  three  hundred 
monasteries  and  churches.4  Columba  was  denominated, 
though  a  presbyter,  '  primate  of  all  the  Irish  bishops,  and  of 
all  the  Irish  churches.'5  '  Till  the  year  1152, 6  their  bishops 
seem  to  have  been  properly  cl tore  pis  copi,  or  rural  bishops.  In 
Mealh  alone,  there  were  fourteen  bishoprics  ;  in  Dublin  thir- 
teen. Their  number,  it  is  supposed,  might  amount  to  above 
three  hundred.7  They,  in  the  same  manner  with  the  Scottish 
and  Pictish  bishops,  exercised  their  functions  at  large,  as  they 
had  opportunity.8  'That  bishop,  in  Ireland,'  says  Toland, 
'  did,  in  the  fifth  or  sixth  centuries,  (for  example,)  signify  a 
distinct  order  of  men,  by  whom  alone  presbyters  could  be  or- 
dained, and  without  which  kind  of  ordination  their  ministry 
were  invalid;  this  I  absolutely  deny;  as  I  do  that  those  bish- 
ops were  diocesan  bishops,  when  nothing  is  plainer,  than  that 
most  of  them  had  no  bishoprics  at  all,  in  our  modern  sense  ; 
not  to  speak  of  those  numerous  bishops  frequently  going  out 
of  Ireland,  not  called  to  bishoprics  abroad,  and  many  of  them 
never  preferred  there.'9  We  have  a  similar  account  of  the 
Irish  bishops,  in  that  rare  and  curious  work,  the  Monasticon 
Hibernicum.  '  It  is  to  be  observed,'  says  the  author, '  that  Col- 
man,  having  been  a  bishop  in  England,  was  no  sooner  settled 

1)  Bede's  Ch.  Hist,  of  Gr.  Brit.  4)  Smith's  Life  of  Columb.  p.  149, 
B.  iii.  ch.  iv.  Dr.  Stapleton's  Transl.  in  Stuart,  624. 

2)  '  Thus  making  him  bishop  they  5)  Smith's  Life  of,  151,152  ;    No- 
sent  him  forth,'  ibid,  B.iii.  ch.  v.  tker  Balb.  Mart,  in  Jamieson,  pp.  335, 

3)  Jamieson's    Hist,  of  the   Cul-  358. 

dees,  Edinb.  4to.  1811,  p.  98.  '  Though  6)  Jamieson,  ibid,  pp.  335,  336. 

themselves  presbyters,  they   did  not  7)  Ledwich's  Antiq.  Irel.  pp.  82, 

hesitate   to   ordain   bishops.'   Stuart's     83. 
Hist.  App.  xiii.  p.  626.  8)  Ibid,  p.  106. 

9)  Nazarenus,  Lett.  ii.  pp.  37,  38. 


CHAT.  II.]  WAS    PRESBYTERIAN.  495 

at  Inisbofinde,  but  that  place  became  a  bishopric;  so  that 
St.  Colman,  who  had  before  been  called  bishop  of  Lindisfarn, 
was  afterwards  styled  bishop  of  Inisbofinde ;  and  the  same 
saint  going  afterwards  to  Mays,  that  place  was  likewise  a 
bishopric,  which  was  united  to  that  of  Inisbofinde;  so  cer- 
tain it  is  that  formerly,  in  ihe  British  islands,  bishoprics  were 
not  regulated  and  settled,  but  the  bishops  were  movable, 
without  being  confined  to  any  certain  diocese.' 

Our  conclusion  is  attested  also  by  Mr.  Stuart,  though  ex- 
ceedingly zealous  for  episcopacy.  '  The  bishops  alluded  to 
by  Bede,'  says  he,  in  his  very  learned  dissertation,1  '  as  subor- 
dinate to  the  Culdees  of  Hi,  could  not  have  been  diocesan 
bishops,  or  members  of  a  regularly-ascending  hierarchy ; 
for  such  prelates  would  not  have  submitted  to  the  rule  of  a 
presbyter.  They  were  probably  of  the  nature  of  chorepis- 
copi,  of  whom  there  were  many  both  in  Scotia  major  and 
Scotia  minor.  Though  the  Culdees  were  themselves  pres- 
byters, they  did  not  hesitate  to  ordain  bishops.' 

But  to  all  this  it  is  replied,  that  Usher un forms  us  out  of 
the  Annals  of  Ulster,  that  there  was  always  a  bishop  kept  in 
the  monastery  of  Iona,  and  that  Columba  thus  acknowl- 
edged the  necessity  of  a  bishop  for  ordination.2  Usher, 
however,  has  been  made  to  say  more  than  he  did  really  de- 
clare. His  words  are,  '  the  Ulster  annals  teach,  that  even  that 
small  island  had  not  only  an  abbot,  but  also  a  bishop.'  But 
even  this  is  only  the  inference  made  by  Usher,  and  not  the 
declaration  of  these  annals  themselves.  For  the  whole  proof 
of  this  oft-repeated  declaration  is  contained  in  these  words: 
'A.  711  Coide,  bishop  of  Hii,  deceases.'3  Now,  although 
Usher  gives  a  list  of  the  successive  abbots  in  this  monastery, 
he  has  been  unable  to  give  any  succession  of  bishops.  Only 
two  abbots  in  the  course  of  two  hundred  and  sixty-three 
years  are  entitled  bishops,  in  the  list  of  Colgan.4  This 
title,  however,  as  we  have  seen,  was  given  to  the  abbots,  though 
presbyters,  and  used  synonymously  with  the  term  presbyter. 
Every  one  of  those  included  in  this  succession,  embracing 
the  two  denominated  bishops,  were  accordingly  abbots  of 
Hii.  Nor  is  any  one  of  all  that  are  named  called  '  bishop  of 
Hii,'  all  their  relations  to  this  island  being  marked  by  the 
term,  abbot.  They  are  only  spoken  of  as  bishops,  therefore,  in 
its  general,  indeterminate  sense.    There  is,  then,  no  proof  what- 

1)  Hist,  of  Armagh,  Append,  xiii.  3)  Jamieson,  p. -1!'. 
p.  626.                                                                    4)  Jamieson,  p.  51. 

2)  Lloyd's  Hist.  Acct.  p.  102. 


496  THE    POLITY    OF    THE    CULDEES  [BOOK  III. 

ever,  that  there  was  always  in  the  monastery  of  Iona  a  bishop, 
besides  the  abbot,  for  the  purposes  of  ordination.  There  is 
no  proof,  that  there  was  any  such  order  as  the  bishop  of  Hii, 
or  that  there  was  any  such  diocese  as  that  of  Hii.1  In  still 
further  confirmation  of  this  opinion,  it  must  be  mentioned, 
that  the  Saxon  Chronicle,  A.  D.  560,  contains  the  following 
passage;  '  From  henceforth,  there  ought  to  be  always  in  II, 
(Iona,)  an  abbot,  but  no  bishop  ;  and  all  the  Scottish  bish- 
ops should  be  subject  to  him,  because  Columba  was  an 
abbot,  and  no  bishop.'2  Similar  is  the  constitutional  canon 
adopted  by  the  synod  of  Hereford,  c.  4,  (A.  D.  673;)  Ut 
episcopi  monachi  non  migrent  de  loco  in  locum  hoc  est  de  mo- 
nasterio  in  monasterinm,  nisi  per  dimissionem  proprii  abbatis, 
sed  in  en  permaneant  obediential  quam  tempore  suae  conver- 
sionis  promiscrant.^  This  canon  was  decreed  as  one  of  the 
canons  of  the  fathers,  quce  definerunt  stare  canones  Patrum,  as 
Theodoras,  their  president,  affirms  in  the  preface.  Now, 
from  this  canon  it  is  manifest,  that  these  pretended  prelates 
were  sworn  to  render  absolute  canonical  obedience  to  one 
single  presbyter,  and  never  to  officiate  without  his  permission  ; 
and  how  much  they  resembled  modern  or  Romish  prelates, 
we  leave  our  readers  to  judge.  Henry  of  Huntingdon 
affirms,  that  Columba  was  a  preacher ;  not  a  bishop,  but  a 
presbyter;'  and  that  his  successors  'imitated  his  example.'4 
Bede  himself  uses  the  terms  bishop  and  priest,  with  respect 
to  what  was  transacted  at  Iona,  as  if  they  admitted  of  no 
difference  of  signification  as  to  office.  When  speaking  of 
that  bishop,  who  had  been  sent  to  king  Oswald,  but  meeting 
with  no  success  returned  home,  he  with  the  same  breath 
gives  him  both  designations ;  using  both  the  term  antistes, 
and  sacerdos  ;  and  the  import  of  both,  nay,  the  great  dignity 
of  his  office,  is  made  to  lie  in  this,  that  he  was  a  preacher. 
It  was  in  his  room  that  Aidan  was  sent.  It  is,  indeed,  said 
that  he  deserved  to  be  made  a  bishop,  and  that  he  was  or- 
dained. But,  besides  the  circumstance  of  his  being  ordained 
by  the  conventus  seniorum,  it  may  be  difficult  to  prove,  that 
he  was  a  preacher  before.     As  it  is  admitted,  that  in  these 

1)  See  Jamieson,pp.  48-52.  As  to     the  passage  against  the  exceptions  of 
the   shadow  of  a  proof  produced  by     bishop  Lloyd. 

Goodal,  see  ibid,  pp.  53  -56,  where  it  is  3)   Spelm.  p.  155;  Beda,  1.  4,  c.  5  ; 

shown  to  be  less  than  a  shade,  and  that  Clarkson's     Primit.    Episcop.    p.    39, 

'it  proves  more   than    the   friends  of  where,  on  pp.  38-40,  he  gives  several 

diocesan  episcopacy  wish,    as  it  de-  instances  of  bishops   in   monasteries, 

stroys  their  own  argument.'  which,  nevertheless,  were  parts  of  a 

2)  Vers.    Gibson,  p.  21 ;  Stuart's  diocese,  and  generally  less  than  vil- 
Hist  App.  xiii.p.  627  ;  Jamieson's  Hist,  lages. 

p.  92,  &c,  where   he  fully  vindicates  4)  Jamieson,  pp.  95,  96. 


CHAP.  II. 


WAS    PRESBYTERIAN.  497 


monasteries  there  were  laymen,1  can  it  be  shown,  that  Aidan 
was  any  thing  more  before  his  ordination  as  a  bishop  ?  The 
abbots  of  Hii,  because  of  their  great  authority,  and  extensive 
influence,  although  no  more  than  presbyters,  were,  as  we  have 
seen,  sometimes  called  bishops.  The  terms  abbas  and  cpis- 
copus  seem  to  have  been  used  as  synonymous.2  It  is  further 
certain,  that  during  several  centuries,  those  who  were  called 
bishops  in  Scotland  had  no  dioceses,  or  any  fixed  charge. 
There  were  no  regular  dioceses  for  many  centuries  in  Eng- 
land, nor  in  Scotland,  before  the  beginning  of  the  twelfth 
century.  The  foundation  of  diocesan  episcopacy  was  laid 
in  the  erection  of  the  bishopric  of  St.  Andrews.3 

It  is  therefore  most  evident,  that  the  '  bishops  of  the  Scots ' 
were  not  diocesan  bishops.  They  were  not  ordained 
by  prelates,  but  by  presbyters;  neither  did  they  possess 
any  exclusive  powers  of  ordination.4  They  were  them- 
selves subject,  as  Bede  declares,  to  the  authority  of  their 
governor,  who  was  a  presbyter  abbot,5  and  who,  on  the 
supposition  of  their  being  prelates,  was  under  obligation  to 
be  subject  to  them.6  Nor  can  all  the  ingenuity  of  the  most 
industrious  prelatists  destroy  the  force  of  this  overwhelming 
refutation  of  their  prelatical  assumptions.  On  the  other  hand, 
there  is  no  possibility  of  reconciling  many  of  the  features  of 
the  Culdee  system,  or  the  facts  in  the  case,  with  the  system 
of  diocesan  episcopacy.  Their  abbot,  president,  chief  pastor 
or  moderator,  was  a  presbyter,  and  he  was  constituted  presi- 
dent by  those  who  were  "only  presbyters;  since  'they  chose 
their  abbot  or  president  from  among  themselves.'7  Their 
government  was  common  and   resident  in  the  whole  body, 

1)  Neither  is   it  to  be  forgotten,  abbot  at  Cnobheresburgh,  and  Swith- 

that  those  ancient  monks  were  of  no  ert,    abbot    of    Docore.     The    senior 

order,  nor  indeed  men  in  orders  at  all,  monks,     likewise,    which      governed 

(as  Jerome  notes,  among  others,)  but  under  them,  and  were  like  the  senior 

mere  laymen,  out  of  whom  the  clergy  fellows  of  our  colleges,  might  be  such 

were  commonly  chosen  ;  their  monas-  as  were  not  in  orders.'  Lloyd's  Histor. 

teries,  and  particularly  those   of  the  Account,  p.  169. 

Britons,  Irish,  and  Scots,  having  been  2)   See  proof  in  Jamieson,  pp.  51, 

schools  of  all  good  literature;  and  many  336,337. 

of  them  in  the  nature  of  universities,  3)  Jamieson,  pp.  337, 338,  345,347. 

as,  to  name  no  more,  the  British  and  As  to  England,  see  p.  41,  ibid. 

Irish  Bangor,  the  Scottish  I-colum-kill,  4)  Jamieson,  pp.  36,  37. 

and    Abernethy,  where   were    taught  5)  Ibid,  p.  38. 

history,  philosophy,  theology,  with  all  6)  See  bishop  Lloyd's  attempted 

the  liberal  sciences.'     Tolaiid's  Naza-  perversion  of  the  truth  in  this  case  re- 

renus,p.  33.     'Some  abbots  were  not  futed  in  a  masterly  manner,  by  Jamie- 

so  much  as  priests;  but  either  dea-  son,  pp.  39-48. 

cons,  or  sub-deacons.     Some   abbots  7)  Jamieson,   Hist,   ot  the    Culd. 

were   laymen,  as  the   Irish    Saranus,  p.  35. 
above   mentioned ;  Fullan,  that    was 

63 


498  THE  POLITY  OF  THE  CULDEES       [BOOK  III. 

not  monarchical,  and  confined  to  one  governing  prelate. 
Thus,  when  Corman  returned  from  England,  '  they  (that  is, 
the  Culdees,)  began,'  as  Bede  relates,  '  to  have  much  delibera- 
tion in  the  council,'  (concilio,)  that  is,  as  king  Alfred  trans- 
lates it,  in  their  'gemote,  or  meeting,'  or,  as  Stapleton,  the  old 
translator,  has  it,  '  the  assembly  of  the  presbyters,  (elders.')1 
The  bishops  were  subject,  not  to  the  presiding  abbot  alone, 
but  to  the  abbot  in  conjunction  with  his  presbyters,  that  is, 
the  monastery,  as  Bede  calls  it,  or  '  the  Scottish  aldermen,' 
as  king  Alfred  renders  it.2  This  presbytery  not  merely  re- 
ceived the  reports  of  the  returning  missionary  bishop,  but 
proceeded,  as  in  the  case  above  mentioned,  to  judge  of  their 
conduct,  and  to  inflict  censure,  if  deemed  necessary.3  That 
this  presbytery,  and  not  the  presiding  abbot  or  any  bishop, 
ordained,  is  beyond  all  reasonable  doubt.  Bede,  in  describ- 
ing the  council  of  presbyters,  on  the  occasion  referred  to,  says, 
1  it  being  proved,  that  he  (Aidan)  was  supereminently  en- 
dowed with  the  gift  of  discretion,  thus  ordaining  him,  they 
sent  him  forth.'4  Stapleton  renders  it,  'thus  making  him  a 
bishop,  they  sent  him  forth  to  preach.'5  Cedd,  Aidan,  Finan, 
Column,  and  others,  are  mentioned  by  Bede  as  having  been 
ordained  by  the  Scots,  by  presbyters ;  and  as  having  there 
received  all  the  ordination  they  ever  had.6  Gilbert  Murray, 
in  his  speech  before  the  cardinal,  in  A.  D.  1176,  says,  that '  she, 
(that  is,  this  early  Culdee  church  of  Scotland,)  did  also  ap- 
point, ordain,  and  consecrate  the  bishops  and  priests.' 7  So 
that  till  A.  D.  1109,  when  the  right  was  transferred,  no  bishop 
in  Scotland  could  be  ordained  without  the  consent  of  the 
presbyters  of  Iona.8 

These  Culdees  had  no  third  order  of  preachers,  called  dea- 
cons, since  all  their  preachers  were  presbyter-bishops.  Nor 
do  we  hear  a  syllable  of  all  the  other  accumulated  subordina- 
tion of  offices,  of  which  the  system  of  prelacy  has  in  all  cases 
been  so  fruitful.  Rome,  too,  pronounced  the  same  sentence 
of  invalidity  against  the  orders  of  the  Culdees,  that  she  now 
hurls,  as  a  brutum  fulmen,  against  our  own,  which  is  a  positive 
proof  that  they  were,  in  her  estimation,  non-prelatical,  uncan- 
onical,  and  therefore  presbyterian.  Thus,  to  illustrate  :  Wil- 
frid, a  Saxon  monk,  who  carried  on  the  debate  with  Colman, 

1)  See  Jamieson,  p.  60.  pp.  61, 84, 88,  &c,  where  he  fully  vindi- 

2)  Bede,  Eccl.  Hist.  1.  3,  c.  3,  and  eates  this  view. 
Jamieson.  pp.  69,  70.  5)  In  ibid,  p.  62. 

3)  Jamieson,  ibid,  pp.  75,  76.  6)  In  ibid,  p.  90. 

4)  Hist  1  iii.  c.  5,&c;  Jamieson  7)  In  ibid,  p.  242. 

8)  Jamieson,  pp.  339  -  341. 


CHAP.  II.]  WAS    PRESBYTERIAN.  499 

bishop  of  Lindisfame,  about  the  time  of  observing  Easter, 
'  persisted,'  says  William  of  Malmesbury,  '  in  refusing  to  be 
ordained  by  Scottish  bishops,  or  by  those  whom  the  Scots 
had  ordained,  because  the  apostolical  see  scorned  to  have  any 
fellowship  with  them.'1  He  went,  therefore,  to  France, 
where  he  was  consecrated  bishop.  Numerous  facts,  of  a 
similar  kind,  might,  were  it  necessary,  be  added.  Thus  Bede, 
when  giving  an  account  of  the  ordination  of  Ceadda,  by 
Wini,  with  the  assistance  of  two  British  bishops,  says,  that, 
1  except  Wini,  there  was  not  then  any  bishop  canonically 
ordained  in  all  Britain,'  referring,  as  Selden  supposes,  to  the 
mode  of  ordination  at  Hii  by  presbyters.2  The  synod  of 
Vernon,  in  France,  speaks  of  those  '  bishops,  who  wandered 
about,  having  no  parish,  neither  do  we  know  what  kind  of 
ordination  they  had.'3  The  second  council  of  Chalons,  in 
813,  says ;  '  There  are,  in  certain  places,  Scots,  who  call  them- 
selves bishops,  and  contemning  many,  without  the  license  of 
their  lords  and  superiors,  ordain  presbyters  and  deacons.4 
In  like  manner,  in  a  letter  written  in  1170,  and  attributed  to 
Richard,  archbishop  of  Canterbury,  it  is  said,  '  in  these  days 
certain  false  bishops  of  Ireland,  ....  although  they  have 
received  from  no  one  imposition  of  hands,  discharge  episco- 
pal functions  for  the  people.'5  Bede  informs  us,  that  rather 
than  receive  the  Romish  rite  of  ordination,  the  Culdees,  of 
the  monastery  at  Rippon,  chose  rather  to  quit  the  place.6 

Neither  is  this  view  of  the  Culdee  system  unsupported  by 
names  of  great  authority.  It  is  that  taken  by  all  the  ancient 
and  best  historians.  We  have  already  adduced  the  Saxon 
Chronicle,  Bede,  and  Henry  of  Huntingdon.  John  of  For- 
doun  declares,  '  the  Scots  had,  as  teachers  of  the  faith,  and 
administrators  of  the  sacraments,  only  presbyters  and  monks, 
following  the  custom  of  the  primitive  church.'7  Boece  says, 
the  Culdees  chose,  by  common  vote  among  themselves,  a 
chief  presbyter,  who  had  power  in  things  belonging  to  God; 
and  that,  for  many  years  after,  he  was  called  bishop  of  the 
Scots,  as  it  is  delivered  in  our  annals.' s  Before  the  time  of 
Palladius,  he  adds,  '  the  people,  by  their  suffrages,  chose 
bishops  from  the  monks  and  Culdees.'9  In  the  breviary  of 
Aberdeen,  we  have  nearly  the  same  account,  namely,  that, 

1)  See  in  Jamieson,  p.  330.  G)  Hist.  1.  v.  19,  in  ibid. 

2)  In  Jamieson,  p.  226.  7)  Scottichron.  1.  in.   c.   8.     See 

3)  Binii,   Concil.  iii.  39S;  in  ibid,     vindicated  in  Jamieson.  p.  97. 

p.  226.  S)  Hist.  lib.  vi.  fol.  95,  b.  in  ibid 

4)  Binii,  iii.  195,  in  ibid.  93. 

5)  In  Jamieson,  p.  227,  from  Pet.  9)  Hist.  1.  vii.  fol.  133,  a. 
Blesensis. 


500  THE    CULDEES    WERE    PRESBYTERIANS.  [BOOK   III* 

before  Palladius,  '  the  Scots  had  for  the  teachers  of  the  faith 
and  the  ministers  of  the  sacraments,  presbyters  and  monks, 
following  only  the  rite  and  custom  of  the  primitive  church.'1 
Martine,  in  his  Reliquiae,  admits  that  the  ancient  Culdees 
elected  from  among  themselves  their  own  bishop  ;  that  the 
Scottish  bishops  generally  were  not  fixed;  that  they  were 
made  by  the  Culdees,  and  that  they  were  supported  by  the 
voluntary  contributions  of  the  people.-  This  also  is  the 
opinion  of  Selden,  Blondel,  Smectymnuus,  Henry,  Toland, 
Jamieson,3  Gibbon,4  Buchanan,5  Petrie,6  Sir  J.  Dalrymple,7 
not  to  name  a  host  of  others,  among  the  moderns.8 
Nor  is  this  opinion  at  all  shaken  by  the  Jesuitical  plead- 
ing of  bishop  Lloyd,  or  the  unsupported  and  bravado 
assertions  of  Dr.  Ledwich,  or  the  ignorant  plagiarism  of 
meaner  writers.  The  authors  of  that  recent  and  elaborate 
work,  the  Pictorial  History  of  England,  allow  lhat  the  opin- 
ion which  makes  their  system  of  ecclesiastical  polity  '  strictly 
presbyterian,'  'has  been  most  generally  held, and  seems  most 
conformable  to  the  expressions  of  Bede,  the  earliest  author- 
ity on  the  subject.'9  '  After  the  most  impartial  investigation 
of  this  subject,'  says  Mr.  Jamieson,10  'of  which  I  am  capable, 
I  have  not  found  a  shadow  of  proof,  that  any  of  those,  sent 
forth  as  bishops  from  that  island,  were  ordained  by  such  as 
claimed  a  dignity  superior  to  that  of  presbyter.  And  that  the 
Culdees  exercised  the  right  and  power  of  ordaining,  without 
any  consecration  from  a  superior  order  of  clergy,  those,  who 
were  called  bishops,  in  a  general  sense,  or  bishops  of  Scotland, 
and  this  without  any  conge  d/elire  from  the  sovereign,  as  late 
as  the  twelfth  century,  appears  from  the  fact,  that,  in  the  year 
1109,  this  right  was  taken  from  them,  and  vested  in  the  pri- 
mate of  St.  Andrews.  All  the  right  of  the  Culdees,  '  through- 
out the  whole  kingdom  of  Scotland,'  although  at  this  time 
they  were  very  numerous,  was  then  transferred  to  a  single 
person.  Here,  says  Mr.  Jamieson,  we  have  the  admission  of 
a  change,  from  something  which  strikingly  resembles  pres- 
bytery, to  the  very  acme  of  prelacy.11 

From  this  examination  into  the  polity  of  the  Culdees,  we 
may  at  once  see  the  futility  and  suicidal  character  of  the 

1)  In  Julio,  fols.  24,  25,  in  ibid,  6)  Ibid,  p.  237. 
100.  V)   Ibid,  p.  240. 

2)  Eeliq.  Divi.   Andreas,  pp.  27,  8)  See  Stuart's  Hist,  of  Armagh, 
28;  in  ibid,  100, 101.  p.  627. 

3)  Stuart's  Hist,  of  Armagh,   p.  9)  See   Adomnani,  Vit.    St.    Col. 
629.  and  Hist,  as  above,  vol.  i.  p.  229. 

4)  In  Jamieson,  p.  235;  Hist.  vol.  10)   Hist,  of  Culd.  p.  331. 

vi.  p.  240.  11)  Hist,  of  Culd.  pp.  340-344. 

5)  In  ibid,  p.  236. 


CHAP.  II.]   THE  PAULICIAN  CHURCHES  PRESBYTERIAN.     501 

claim  put  forth  by  episcopalians  to  exclusive  prelatical  suc- 
cession, as  essential  to  the  validity  of  the  ministry,  since, 
upon  the  validity  of  presbyterian  ordination  and  the  aposto- 
licity  of  presbyterian  bishops,  depends  the  whole  succession 
of  the  English  church,  and,  by  necessity,  of  the  American 
episcopal  churches.  Sir  James  Dalrymple,  in  his  Collections 
of  Scottish  History,  says;1  'the  second  head  is  concerning 
the  mission  by  the  abbot  and  monks  of  this  monastery, 
(Icolmkill,)  to  convert  the  Northumbrian  Saxons  to  the  chris- 
tian faith;  and  the  appointing  and  ordaining  bishops  or  doc- 
tors for  these  churches,  from  whose  disciples,  and  by  ivhose 
ordinations,  more  churches  were  planted,  and  bishops  and  doc- 
tors were  established  in  the  other  Saxon  kingdoms,  which 
Saxon  churches  of  the  Scottish  institution  did  drown  the 
authority  of  the  pope  and  bishop  of  Rome,  and  for  a  long 
time  did  maintain  the  differences  betwixt  these  and  Roman 
Saxon  churches,  which  at  last  prevailed  over  all  the  Saxon 
churches.'2 

§  3.   The  Paulician,  Aerian,  and  Vaudois  churches  were 
presbyterian. 

The  Paulician  churches  were  also  presbyterian.  In  refer- 
ence to  these  the  reader  is  referred  to  what  was  said  above.3 
We  will  only  add  the  opinion  of  Mr.  Soames,  an  episcopa- 
lian, in  his  recent  edition  of  Mosheim.  He  says,  'at  the 
same  time  we  discover,  as  to  most  of  their  doctrines,  that  they 
had,  in  several  respects,  more  correct  ideas  of religion,  of  reli- 
gious worship,  and  of  church-government,  than  the  pre- 
vailing church  at  that  day  had ;  and  that  they  drew  on  them- 
selves persecution  by  their  dislike  of  images,  and  by  their 
opposition  to  the  hierarchy,  more  than  by  their  other  reli- 
gious opinions.'4 

The  Aerian  churches  were  also  presbyterian.  In  reference 
to  these  we  also  refer  to  our  previous  remarks.5 

"We  proceed  to  remark,  that  the  churches  of  the  Vaudois, 

1)  Presb.  Defended,  p.  67.  the  State  of  the  Ancient  Irish  Church, 

2)  On  the  subject  of  the  Culdees,     p.  612,  &c;  Plea  for  Presbytery,  p.  51, 
see  Jamieson's   Hist,  of  the  Ancient    &c. 

Culdees,    Edinb.  1811,   4to.  pp.   415;  3)  See  B.  ii.  c.  4,  concl. 

Dr.  Ledwich's  Antiquities  of  Ireland,  4)  See   also  a  valuable  note  on 

p.  102,  &c;  Jameson's  Fundamentals  these  witnesses  for  the  truth  in  Faber's 

of  the    Hierarchy,  pp.   33-47;  Bax-  Primitive  Doctr.  of  Justification,  near 

ter's  Episcopacy,  part  ii.  p.  224  ;  Heth-  the  end,  and  a  very  able  article  in  the 

erington's  Hist,  of  the  Ch.  of  Scotland,  Churchman's  Monthly  Review,  Jan. 

ch.  i.  and  the  histories  generally  ;  Bax-  1843. 

ter's  Disput.  on  Ch.  Govt.  p.  97  ;   Stu-  5)  B.  ii.  c.  4,  §  2. 

art's  History  of  Armagh,  Append,  on 


502  THE    VVALDENSES  [BOOK  III. 

or  the  Waldenses,  were  presbyterian.  In  entering  upon  the 
consideration  of  the  Waldenses,  in  some  respects  the  most 
remarkable  people  on  the  face  of  the  earth,  we  are  reminded 
of  an  observation  of  Merle  D'Aubigne,  that  the  encroach- 
ments of  power  form  a  large  portion  of  all  history ;  the  resis- 
tance of  those  whose  rights  are  invaded,  forms  the  other  part. 
In  the  churches  of  the  Vaudois,  we  have  the  bush  which  has 
always  been  surrounded  by  the  flames  of  persecution  ;  and 
which  has,  nevertheless,  never  yet  acknowledged  the  yoke 
and  authority  of  papal  Rome,  but  has,  unconsumed,  preser- 
ved the  doctrines  and  polity  of  the  scriptures  from  the  very 
earliest  period  of  Christianity.  Hence  Milton  denominates 
them  '  the  most  ancient  stock  of  religion.'  '  It  has  ever  been 
the  interest  of  the  church  of  Rome  to  represent  the  principles 
of  the  reformation  as  mere  modern  innovations,  that  they 
may  the  more  triumphantly  ask  the  protestant,  '  where  was 
your  church  before  the  days  of  Luther  ?  '  On  this  account, 
they  assert  that  the  Waldenses  can  be  traced  no  farther  back 
than  the  days  of  Peter  Waldo,  who  flourished  in  the  middle 
of  the  twelfth  century ;  and  that  from  him  they  have  derived 
their  title,  by  which  they  are  known  in  history.  But  the 
terms  Waldenses,  Vallenses,  and  Vaudois,  are  merely  terri- 
torial appellations,  meaning  '  inhabitants  of  the  valley,' 
applied  to  those  who  dwelt  in  the  valleys  within  the  confines 
of  Piedmont ;  as  they  were  called  in  the  south  of  France, 
Albigenses,  from  having  their  chief  residence  in  that  king- 
dom at  Albi.  Upon  the  same  principle,  those  who  adopted 
their  principles  were  sometimes  called,  in  later  times,  Lom- 
bards, Picards,  Bulgarians,  or  Bohemians,  according  to  the 
countries  in  which  they  resided.' x 

1)  On  the  origin  and  antiquity  of  them  into  general  hatred  and  contempt, 
the  term  Vallenses,  Vaudois,  &c.  see  In  Dauphiny,  they  were  called  Chaign- 
Dr.  Gilly's  Valdenses.  Edinb.  lS41.pp.  ards,  and  those  who  had  passed  beyond 
2,  3.  '  Frequently,  they  were  named  the  Alps  were  called  Tramontanes,  a 
after  most  distinguished  teachers  ;  and  word  equivalent  to  barbarians.  They 
thus  they  have  been  successively  kept  no  day  holy  but  the  Sabbath;  and 
termed  Lollards,  Josephites,  Arnold-  on  this  account  they  were  sometimes 
ists,  Berengarians,  Henriciens,  andoth-  called  Insabathas,  as  if  they  observed 
er  such  appellations.  Sometimes  a  no  Sabbath  at  all.  In  Germany,  they 
title  was  given  them  from  their  mode  were  branded  by  the  title  of  Gazares, 
of  life  ;  and  in  this  way  they  were  call-  meaning  a  people  execrably  wicked; 
ed  Fraticella,  from  their  brotherly  af-  and  in  Flanders,  Turlupins,  because 
fection  for  each  other;  Paterinians,  their  dwelling  was  with  the  wolves, 
from  their  frequent  sufferings;  and  In  addition  to  these  opprobrious  names, 
Passagenes,  from  their  being  driven  charges  were  brought  against  them,  of 
from  place  to  place  by  persecution,  the  same  foul  character  with  which 
But  these  appellations  were  too  harm-  the  heathens  had  been  wont  to  asperse 
less  for  the  malignity  of  those  who  ha-  the  primitive  christians.'  On  the  re- 
ted  the  Waldenses,  and  others  were  proachful  tenets  and  practices  attribu- 
invented  for  the  purpose  of  bringing  ted  to  them,  see  Mr.  Faber's  able  work. 


CHAP.  II.]  WERE    PRESBYTERIANS.  503 

That  the  Cottian  Alps,  says  Dr.  Gilly,  have  been  inhabited 
by  a  relatively  pure  association  of  christians  from  time  imme- 
morial, who  have  testified  for  the  truth,  upon  the  same  arti- 
cles of  faith  as  the  protestant  churches  of  modern  times,  is  a 
tradition  not  unsupported  by  documentary  evidence,  but  still 
open  to  discussion.  The  Valdenses  of  these  regions  main- 
tain, that  they  are  descended  from  a  race  who  peopled  the 
same  villages,  and  professed  the  same  gospel,  in  the  first  cen- 
turies of  the  christian  era.  '  We  have  inherited  our  religion,' 
say  they, '  with  our  lands,  from  the  primitive  christians.  This 
is  no  modern  pretension,  put  forth  since  the  reformation  ;  for 
the  same  language,  as  to  their  antiquity,  was  held  by  their 
ancestors,  not  only  after  the  time  of  Valdo,  but  in  the  age 
before  that  reformer,  to  whom  their  origin  is  sometimes  impu- 
ted.' The  same  author  presents,  also,  as  the  result  of  his  own 
extensive  investigations,  and  from  the  documents  now  pub- 
lishing by  the  historical  commission  of  Turin,  the  follow- 
ing authentic  notices.  We  learn,  that  the  Cottian  Alps 
received  the  gospel  in  the  second  century,  and  that  Irenaeus, 
bishop  of  Lyons,  made  himself  master  of  the  Celtic  language, 
that  he  might  minister  among  the  mountaineers;  the  facilities 
of  intercourse  between  the  subalpines  and  the  inhabitants  of 
the  plain,  were  secured  by  good  roads,  leading  through  the 
centre  of  the  valleys  now  called  protestant,  in  the  direction  of 
Mount  Genevre,  Oulx,  and  Fenestrelle  ;  that  the  village  of 
St.  Secondo,  in  the  valley  of  the  Clusone,  is  so  called  from  a 
martyr  of  that  name  in  the  year  120  ;  that  Crisolo,  near  Rosa, 
in  Val  Lucerna,  was  the  place  of  St.  Geoffrey's  concealment, 
before  his  martyrdom,  in  297 ;  and  that,  during  the  persecu- 
tion of  Diocletian,  many  christians  of  the  Theban  legion 
found  refuge  in  these  regions.1  We  know  that,  a  hundred 
years  afterwards,  Ambrose,  of  Milan,  whose  diocese  extended 
to  the  Alps,  complained  of  his  mountain  clergy,  refusing  to 
become  celibates,  on  the  plea  of  ancient  custom ; 2  and  that 
Vigilantius  made  the  Cottian  Alps  the  place  of  his  sojourn- 
ment,3 when  he  opposed  himself  to  the  errors  of  the  church; 
because  there  he  was  received  with  kindness  by  professors  of 
Christianity,  who  refused  to  adopt  the  services  of  monachism, 
prayers  for  the  dead,  saint  and  relic  worship,  and  other  super- 
stitions which  were  creeping  into  practice.4     Again,  after  an 

1)  See  '  Storia  delle  Alpi  Marit-  ed  Inquiry  into  the  history  of  the  Val- 
time,'  published  in  Hist.  Patr.  Mon.  lenses,  p.227)  thinks  the  Valdenses  may 

2)  De  Officiis,  lib.  i.  cap.  50.  have  been  called  Leonists,  from  this 

3)  Hieron.  Opera,  vol.  iv.  p.  279.  Vigilantius.  the  Leonist,  or  native  of 
Epist.  37.  aliter  53.  Lugdumum  Convenarum. 

4)  Mr.  Faber  (see  his  very  learn- 


504  THE    WALDENSES  [BOOK  III. 

interval  of  more  than  400  years,  we  find  that  doctrines,  called 
by  Jonas,  of  Orleans,  and  Dungalus,1  the  heresy  of  Vigilantius, 
were  still  cherished  here,  and  that  Claude,  bishop  of  Turin, 
'  that  bright  and  golden  ring  in  the  chain  of  Cisalpine  protest- 
antism,' gave  the  sanction  of  his  episcopal  authority  to  opin- 
ions which  the  Gallic  reformer  of  the  fourth  century  had  been 
reviled  by  Jerome  for  propounding.  Claude  found  two  par- 
ties in  his  diocese,  one  of  which  favored  his  schemes  of  church 
reform ;  and  after  his  death  (according  to  the  authority  of 
Dungalus)  it  was  called  the  sect  of  Claude.  Thus  it  is  cer- 
tain that  Vigilantius,  and  after  him  Claude,  left  disciples  in 
these  parts,2  just  where  we  are  looking  for  them;  but  we 
have  no  ground  for  maintaining  that  the  Valdenses  were  in 
a  state  of  secession  from  the  provincial  bishops  of  France,  or 
Italy,  within  whose  dioceses  they  were  situated,  at  either  of 
the  periods  to  which  we  have  just  referred,  the  fourth  and  the 
ninth  centuries.  In  those  days,  and  for  two  or  three  hundred 
years  after  Claude,  the  truth  might  be  held,  and  public  testi- 
monies for  the  truth  might  be  given,  and  protests  against  the 
errors  of  Rome  might  be  made,  without  the  necessity  of  sep- 
aration from  the  church  called  catholic ;  witness  the  great 
Iconoclastic  question,  which  agitated  Christendom  in  the  ninth 
and  tenth  centuries.  There  is  reason,  therefore,  to  believe 
that,  until  a  much  later  period,  congregations  of  the  Cottian 
Alps  may  have  continued  to  maintain  a  purer  faith  than  that 
of  Rome,  without  leading  to  any  proceedings  in  those  parts, 
which  could  be  called  acts  of  schism  on  the  one  side,  or  of 
persecution  on  the  other.  But  that  there  existed  among  the 
Cottian  Alps  a  people  professing  the  pure  religion  of  the  gos- 
pel, is  beyond  all  doubt.  Their  protest  against  growing  cor- 
ruptions was  commenced  by  Vigilantius  about  A.  D.  401. 
'  Inter  Hadriae  fluctus,  Cottiique  Regis  Alpes,'  as  Jerome 
says,  who  also  declares  that  many  bishops  were  among  his 
followers.3  The  same  protest  was  sustained  in  A.  D.  600, 
under  Peter  of  Valdis  ;  in  A.  D.  820,  under  Claude,  of  Turin  ; 
in  A.  D.  945,  to  the  distress  of  Atto,  of  Vercelli ;  in  1050,  as 
is  testified  by  Peter  Damian;  and  in  1124,  to  the  horror  of 
abbot  Rodolph.4 

1)  See  Dungali  Epist.adv.  Claud,  mountain  districts  are  stated  to  have 
and  Jonae  Auv.  Episc.  Epist.  adv.  been  the  latibula,  or  places  of  security, 
Claud,  in  Bib.  Pat.  vol.  iv.  p.  536,  and  where  non-conformity  with  the  domi- 
vol.  v.  pp.  153-163.  nant  church  lurked. 

2)  It  is  curious  to  observe  how,  3)  Hier.  adv.  Vigil,  c.  1.  opp.  vol. 
from    Philactrius,  who   died  in   387,  ii.  p.  108,  and  Ep.  63. 

down  to   Ratherins,  who  died  in  974,  4)   See  these  authorities  given  in 

and  again,  from  Peter,  of  Chigny,  who  full  in  the  Churchman's  Monthly  Re- 
wrote in   1127,   to  the   Reformation,     view,  Feb.  1543,  p.  128,  &c;  in  Faber's 


CHAP.  II.]  "WERE    PRESBYTERIAN.  505 

That  the  claim  of  the  Waldenses  to  be  descendants  of  those 
who,  from  father  to  son,  have  preserved  the  primitive  and 
apostolical  faith,  is  therefore  well  founded,  may  be  authentica- 
ted by  more  modern  witnesses.  The  author  of  the  '  Nobla 
Leyczon,' 1  A.  D.  1100;  Moneta,2  who  wrote  against  the 
alleged  heresies  of  his  days,  and  died  in  1240  ;  and  Reinerus,3 
the  inquisitor,  whose  treatise  was  completed  in  1250;  all  bear 
witness  that  the  religionists  mentioned  by  them,  under  the 
appellation  of  Vaudls  and  Lombardi  Pavperes,  and  whom 
we  are  led  to  identify  with  the  Valdenses,  professed  in 
those  times  to  trace  their  religious  genealogy  and  character- 
istics to  the  primitive  ages.  Remarkable  are  the  words  of 
Reinerus  Pisanus,  who  wrote  about  the  year  1250.  In  refer- 
ence to  the  Waldenses  and  Albigenses,  he  says,4  '  On  three 
accounts,  among  all  the  sects  which  are,  or  have  been,  there 
is  none  more  destructive  than  the  poor  people  of  Lyons.  1st. 
because  it  has  been  of  the  longest  duration ;  some  say  that 
this  sect  has  continued  since  the  time  of  pope  Sylvester ;  oth- 
ers since  the  days  of  the  apostles.  2d.  Because  it  is  more 
universal,  for  there  is  scarce  any  part  of  the  world'  in  which 
this  sect  has  not  diffused  itself.  3d.  Because  all  other  sects 
beget  horror  in  the  minds  of  men,  on  account  of  the  exceed- 
ing grossness  of  their  blasphemies  against  God ;  whereas, 
these  of  Lyons  have  a  great  appearance  of  sanctity,  in  that 
they  live  justly  before  men,  believe  righteously  concerning 
God,  and  all  the  articles  contained  in  the  creed ;  only  they 
blaspheme  and  hate  the  church.'  Thus  Reinerius,  who  was 
far  from  being  their  friend,  most  freely  acknowledges  that 
this  sect  was  diffused  almost  every  where  through  the  world, 
and,  according  to  some,  had  continued  from  the  days  of  the 
apostles.  With  such  evidence  of  the  fact  before  us,  well, 
therefore,  may  we 

Inquiry  and  Provincial  Letters,  vol.  i. ;  for  the  creed  of  the  Valdenses.     But, 

Ducher.  Spicil.  vol.  viii.  pp.  111,112;  if  we  would  do  them  justice,  and  as- 

Palmer  on  the  Ch.  vol.  i.  188;  Plan-  certain  the  articles  of  faith  really  main- 

ter's  Hist,  of  Helv.  Conf.  vol.  i.  tained   by  them,   we  should    look  to 

1)    'The    inquirer,   who    would  three  periods  of  time  for  this  informa- 

make  himself  master  of  the  religious  tion.' 

character  of  the    Valdensian  church,  2)    Moneta   contra    Cathoros   et 

must  take  care  not  to  be  led  out  of  his  Valdenses,  lib.  v.  p.  405,  edit.  Richini, 

way  in  search  of  it.     He  must  confine  Roma?,  1743. 

his  attention  toone  particular  locality ;  3)   Reinerus  de   Sectis   Antiquo- 

that  is,  the  subalpine  territory   lying  rum    Hacreticortim,  c.    4.    Bib.    Patr. 

between  Mount  Genevre  and  Mount  vol.  iv. 

Viso.     It  has  been  the  mistake  of  ma-  4)   Ayton's  Constit.  of  Ch.  p  57G. 
ny  writers  and  readers,  to  ask,  among 
the  heretics  of  all  times  and  places, 

64 


506  THE    WALDENSES  [BOOK   III. 

Rejoice  that  human  hearts,  through  scorn, 
Through  shame,  through  death  made  strong, 

Before  the  rocks  and  heavens,  have  borne 
Witness  to  God  so  long. 

Great  deference,  then,  must  be  paid  to  the  testimony  of  a 
church  which  has  thus  continued  unchanged  for  sixteen  cen- 
turies, amid  torrents  of  persecution  which  swept  over  their 
valleys,  and  who  have  '  borne  and  had  patience,  and  not 
fainted  or  denied  the  faith.'  If,  also,  as  history  seems  clearly 
to  indicate,  and  learned  men  admit,1  the  Vaudois  were  the 
chosen  depositories  of  the  truth,  and  that,  from  their  never- 
extinguished  lamp,  the  light  of  the  gospel  spread  over  Europe, 
they  have  surely  no  small  claim  to  the  veneration  and  regard 
of  '  all  who  love  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ  in  sincerity.'  The 
'  Lollards,'  who  were  among  the  earliest  reformers,  derived  that 
title  from  a  Vaudois  pastor,  so  named.  One  also  who  was 
so  designated,  Walter  Lollard,  visited  England  in  the  time 
of  the  third  Henry,  and  disseminated  those  doctrines  which 
were  subsequently  collected  by  Wickliffe  into  one  focus, 
justly  entitling  him  to  be  called  'the  morning  star  of  the 
(English)  Reformation.'  If  the  doctrines  of  the  Waldenses 
are  identically  the  same  with  those  of  all  the  orthodox 
churches  of  the  reformation;  and  if  they  are  still  preserved,  as 
a  church  and  people,  from  the  exterminating  fury  of  papal 
persecution,  through  the  strong-armed  interference  of  the  puri- 
tan Cromwell ;  the  character  of  their  ecclesiastical  regime 
must  be  of  the  first  importance. 

That  they  were,  and  continue  to  be,  essentially  presbyte- 
rian,  we  believe  to  be  the  truth  in  the  case,  and  for  the  follow- 
ing reasons.  Their  ecclesiastical  system  is  now  undoubt- 
edly presbyterian.  '  Their  discipline,'  says  Dr.  Gilly,2 '  is  now 
presbyterian,  very  much  resembling  that  of  the  church  of  Scot- 
land.' This  is  his  report  in  1841.  In  1831  he  was  only  pre- 
pared to  admit,  that  'the  present  ecclesiastical  government  of 
the  Vaudois  is,  in  some  degree,  like  that  of  the  presbyterian 
church,  but  more  relaxed  and  indulgent.'3  The  degree  to 
which  the  resemblance  exists,  which  has  increased  within 
ten  years  '  very  much,'  may  be  seen  from  what  Dr.  Gilly 
himself  says,  after  long  residence  among  them.  '  Each 
church,  by  its  own  consistory,  composed  of  minister,  deacon, 
and  elders,  manages  its  own  affairs  in  ordinary  matters,  and 
never  receives  a  pastor  but  by  its  own  consent.'  He  also 
shows  that  they  have  presbyterial  and  synodical  assemblies  ; 

1)  Presh.  Rev.  Jan.  1842,  pp.  600,  3)  See  his  Waldensian  Research- 
601.                                                                es.  Lond.  1831,  p.  3S3. 

2)  Vallenses,  p.  22. 


CHAP.  II.]  WERE    PRESBYTERIAN.  507 

and  that  '  their  moderator  does  not  even  ordain,  or  exercise 
any  authority  unless  in  conjunction  with  the  table,  (or  Synod,) 
at  the  synod,  as  president.'  Truly,  this  '  some  degree 
like''  is  a  very  perfect  likeness  of  presbyterianism,  and 
wholly  unlike  prelacy.  The  article  on  the  subject  of  the  min- 
istry, in  their  confession  made  in  their  synod,  held  in  1839,  is 
the  following:1  '  The  church  should  have  pastors  appointed 
to  preach  the  word  of  God,  to  administer  the  sacraments,  and 
to  watch  over  the  flock,  together  with  elders  and  deacons,  as 
in  the  primitive  church.' — Art.  31.  This  view  of  their  pres- 
ent ecclesiastical  system  is  also  vouched  by  Mr.  Perceval, 
who  says,  '  that  they  are,  at  the  present  time,  presbyterian, 
is  certain.'  2  '  In  regard  to  episcopal  consecration,'  says  Mr. 
Ackland,an  episcopalian,3  'this  ornament  of  our  church  estab- 
lishment, so  justly  cherished  by  us,  is  unquestionably  no  lon- 
ger preserved  among  the  Vaudois.' 

While  the  Waldensians  are  now  so  perfectly  presbyte- 
rian in  their  whole  order  of  the  ministry  and  discipline  of  the 
church,  Dr.  Gilly,  with  all  his  ingenuity  and  research,  can 
discover  no  period  when  an  alleged  change  took  place,  and 
prelacy  was  abandoned.  '  It  is  not  exactly  known,'  he  says,4 
'  at  what  time,  or  by  what  means,  the  original  polity  was 
changed  ;  but,  at  the  latter  end  of  the  16th  and  the  beginning 
of  the  17th  century,  we  find  the  moderator  of  their  church,  as 
the  chief  ecclesiastical  minister  was  then  and  is  now  called, 
ordaining  by  the  imposition  of  hands,  and  visiting  each  par- 
ish every  year,  and  censuring  or  approving,  and  reporting  to 
the  synod.'  It  thus  appears  that,  as  early  as  the  16th  cen- 
tury, the  Waldensian  polity  was  precisely  what  it  is  now. 
Every  church  had  its  consistory.  Every  consistory  and  pas- 
tor was  subject  to  the  synod,  which  was  composed  of  all  the 
pastors,  with  elders.  Over  this  synod,  one  of  the  ministers, 
chosen  by  his  brethren,  and  without  any  second  ordination, 
presided.  This  presiding  minister  was  called  then,  as  he  is 
now,  moderator.  He  was  required,  in  accordance  with  the 
plan  of  the  early  Scottish  church,  to  visit  the  different  par- 
ishes, and  to  ordain  only  in  conjunction  with  other  ministers. 
But  he  was,  in  all  things,  responsible  to  the  synod  by  which 
he  had  been  appointed  to  office.  The  Waldenses,  therefore, 
were  as  essentially  presbyterian  in  the  16th  century  as  they 
are  in  the  19th,  and  in  both  their  system  very  much  resem- 
bles that  of  the  church  of  Scotland.     Dr.  Gilly  would  fain 

1 )  See  Dr.  Gilly's  Vallenses,  p.  8.     of  the  Vaudois,  p.  89  ;  and  Blair's  Hist 

2)  On  Apost.  Succ.  p.  31.  of  Waldenses,  i.  p.  540. 

3)  Hist,  of  the   Glorious  Return  4)  Waldensian  Researches,  p.  384. 


508  THE    WALDENSES  [BOOK   III. 

construct  a  prelate  out  of  this  '  moderator]  while  he  declines 
offering  any  manner  of  proof  that  he  possessed  any  one  of 
the  exclusive  powers  by  which  a  prelate  is  distinguished. 
Nay,  he  cuts  the  throat  of  his  own  gratuitous  assumption  ;  for, 
says  he,1  '  it  is  most  probable  that,  even  while  their  ecclesias- 
tical polity  was  episcopal,  their  bishop  possessed  no  poivers, 
except  those  of  ordination  and  censure,  independently  of  the 
synod.  Hence  their  bishops  make  no  figure  in  history.  At 
present  their  moderator  does  not  even  ordain,  nor  does  he 
seem  to  exercise  any  authority,  unless  in  conjunction  with 
the  table,  at  the  synod,  as  president.' 

Dr.  Gilly  is  as  anxious  to  find  some  colorable  pretext  for 
imputing  to  the  Waldenses  the  character  of  prelacy,  as  if 
his  whole  credit  as  an  author  depended  upon  the  discovery. 
He  ?ioiv,  therefore,  thinks  he  has  found  this  in  an  ancient  man- 
uscript, quoted  by  Morland,  which  speaks  of  '  regidors  or 
leaders  of  the  people  and  pastors.'2  But  here  the  reference  is 
manifestly  not  to  prelates,  but  to  the  elders  and  the  pastors; 
for  the  same  document  declares,  that  it  was  one  of  the  pow- 
ers given  by  God  to  his  servants,  to  choose  both  these  leaders 
and  these  presbyters.3  And  Leger,who  quotes  this  document, 
explains  the  ancient  discipline  of  the  Waldenses  in  the  fol- 
lowing words,  which  might  be  supposed  to  be  an  extract  from 
our  form  of  government.4  '  On  the  last  Friday  of  every  month 
the  conference  (le  colloque)  of  the  valley  of  Lucerne  is  held ; 
and  every  first  Friday  of  the  month,  that  of  Perouse  and  St. 
Martin.  It  consists  of  all  the  pastors,  and  one  or  two  elders 
of  every  church.  Each  church  receives  the  conference  in  its 
turn ;  each  pastor  preaches  also  in  his  turn.  In  these  conferences 
they  deliberate  on  all  those  disputes  that  the  consistories  had 
not  settled  ;  so  that  nothing  was  to  be  brought  before  the  gen- 
eral synod,  except  in  the  way  of  appeal  from  the  conferences.' 
We  will  only  add  on  this  head,  that  the 'Vaudois  in  Piedmont' 
are  enumerated  by  Mr.  Leslie  among  those  schismatics,  who 
moulded  their  churches  on  the  presbyterian  polity.5 

As  no  period  can  be  determined  when  presbytery  was  intro- 
duced in  the  place  of  prelacy,  so  would  it  appear,  that  the 
most  ancient  documents  of  the  Valdensian  churches,  know 
nothing  of  the  system  of  prelacy.  It  is  very  probable,  accord- 
ing to  the  evidence  presented,  that  the  Waldenses  were  inde- 

1)  Waldensian  Researches, p.  383.  4)  See  in  ibid,  p.  492. 

2)  Vallenses,  p.  22.  5)  Letter  on    Episc.   in  Scholar 

3)  See  in   Sims's  Historical  Def.  Armed,  vol.  i.  p.  SO. 
of  the  Vaudois,  p.  493. 


CHAP.  II.]  WERE    PRESBYTERIAN.  509 

pendent  of  the  jurisdiction  of  Rome,  till  the  eleventh  century.1 
The  Lombardian  churches  then  apostatizing  to  the  Romish 
church,  the  Vaudois  nobly  refused  to  subject  themselves  to 
the  pope,  and  resolutely  maintained  their  independence,  al- 
though the  churches  of  Aquileia,  Turin,  and  Milan,  were  all 
subjected.  As  previously  to  this  time  the  Vaudois  were  in- 
cluded in  the  diocese  of  Turin,  and  not  distinctly  spoken  of,  it 
will  be  sufficient  for  our  purpose  to  show,  that  in  their  earliest 
independent  state  they  knew  nothing  of  prelacy.  This  has 
been  done,  up  to  the  period  of  the  reformation.  Now  in  the  year 
1520,  Claude  Seyssell,  first  archbishop  of  Turin,  published  a 
treatise  against  the  Waldenses,  after  having  made  an  episco- 
pal visitation,  of  that  part  of  his  diocese  which  was  inhabited 
by  them.2  The  points  on  which  they  then  protested  against 
the  church  of  Rome,  will  be  found  to  exclude  much  that  is 
involved  in  the  prelatical  theory  of  ministerial  succession. 
Their  doctrine  on  the  ministry  he  thus  represents.3  '  Those 
whom  they  judge  to  be  the  best  amongst  them,  they  appoint 
to  be  their  priests,  (that  is,  presbyters,)  to  whom  upon  all  oc- 
casions, they  have  recourse,  as  to  the  vicars  and  successors 
of  the  apostles.'' 

Their  historian,  Leger,  therefore,  represents  their  doctrine 
on  the  apostolical  succession,  so  as  utterly  to  confound  that 
which  is  prelatical.4  '  So  also,'  says  he, '  since  the  holy  scrip- 
tures declare,  that  the  true  church  is  the  same  from  the  begin- 
ning of  the  world,  and  that  all  those  who  maintain  the  true 
faith  that  it  teaches  us,  are  its  legitimate  children ;  the  Vau- 
dois, proving  beyond  contradiction,  that  they  have  always 
professed,  and  still  profess,  this  same  faith,  are  such  without 
contradiction ;  since  the  true  succession  of  the  church  is  not 
merely  a  local  or  a  personal  succession,  but  that  of  faith  and 
sound  doctrine;  as  the  Holy  Spirit  himself  informs  us,  in 
Rom.  4 :  9,  11 ;  Mark  3;  John  8,  &c. ;  and  since,  as  Gregory 
Nazienzen  said,  in  his  funeral  oration  for  Athanasius,  '  all 
those  who  follow  the  faith  of  Abraham,  are  the  true  children 
of  Abraham.'  The  same  historian  remarks,  that  while  the 
Waldenses  thus  preserved  the  true  succession  in  its  purity, 
which  the  Romish  church  had  corrupted,  nevertheless  '  their 
pastors  assumed,  with  equal  readiness,  the  name  of  priests,  of 
pastors,  of  barbes,  and  even  of  bishops.'5  This,  therefore, 
at  once  puts  to  silence  the  only  shadow  of  an  argument  yet 

1)  Hist.  Def.  of  the  Waldenses  or  3)  Quoted  by  Dr.  Allix,  in  his 
Vaudois,  p  486,  and  particularly  Blair's  Remarks  on  the  Eecl.  Hist,  of  the  Al- 
Hist.ofthe  Waldenses,  vol.i.  p.  194, &c.    bigenses,  p.  239,  Oxf.  1821. 

B.  i.  ch.  iii.  who  enters  fully  into  the  4)  In  Sims's  Hist.  Def.  p.  483. 

subject.  5)  Sims's  Hist.  Def.  p.  491. 

2)  Dr.  Gilly's  Vallenses,  p.  8. 


510  THE    WALDENSES  [BOOK  III. 

offered,  in  favor  of  their  prelatical  character,  derived  from  the 
use  of  the  term  bishop,  since  they  used  it  synonymously  with 
pastor.  Aeneas  Sylvius  says,1  'they  deny  the  hierarchy; 
maintaining  that  there  is  no  difference  among  the  priests  by 
reason  of  dignity  of  office.'  The  same  view  of  their  system 
is  given  by  Thuanus,  Walsingham,  Alphonsus  de  Castro, 
Voetius,  and  others.2  Bellarmine  represents  them  as  deny- 
ing the  divine  right  of  prelacy.  Medina,  in  the  council  of 
Trent,  declared  that  the  Waldenses  agreed  in  company  with 
many  of  the  fathers,  with  Aerius,  who  rejected  episcopacy.3 
The  same  thing  is  taught  us  by  the  accusations  of  their 
Romish  persecutors,  '  that  they  were  without  any  duly  ordain- 
ed ministry;  that  they  allowed  mere  laymen,  that  is,  such  as 
were  not  prelatically  ordained,  to  discharge  ministerial  func- 
tions among  them,'4  and  that  they  violently  opposed  the 
Romish  prelacy.  '  In  their  secret  preachings,  moreover,'  says 
Conrad  of  Licptenan,5  speaking  of  them  in  A.  D.  1212, '  which 
they  commonly  made  in  lurking  places,  they  derogated  from 
the  church  of  God  and  the  priesthood.'  Reinerius  says,6 'that 
their  contempt  of  ecclesiastical  power  was  their  first  heresy, 
which,  under  the  influence  of  Satan,  precipitated  them  into 
innumerable  errors.  They  say,  that  the  Roman  church  is 
not  the  church  of  Jesus  Christ;  but  that  it  is  a  church  of  ma- 
lignants,  and  that  it  fell  away  under  Sylvester,  when  the  ven- 
om of  temporal  possessions  was  infused  into  the  church.7 
They  say,  that  they  themselves  are  the  church  of  Christ,  be- 
cause they  observe  the  doctrine  of  Christ  agreeably  to  the 
words  and  examples  of  the  gospel  and  the  apostles.8  They 
falsely  say,  that,  except  themselves,  almost  no  one  preserves 
evangelical  doctrine  in  the  church.9  They  say,  that  they  de- 
spise all  the  statutes  of  the  church,  because  they  are  burden- 
some and  too  numerous.10  They  can  repeat  by  heart,  in  the 
vulgar  tongue,  the  whole  text  of  the  New  Testament,  and 
great  part  of  the  Old ;  and,  adhering  to  the  text  alone,  they 
reject  decretals  and  decrees  with  the  sayings  and  expositions 
of  the  saints.11  They  say,  that  the  doctrine  of  Christ  and  the 
apostles,  without  the  statutes  of  the  church,  is  quite  sufficient 

1)  Dr.  Miller  on  the  Min.  p.  137,  5)  See  the  original  in  Faber's  Val- 
2d.  ed.  lenses  and  Albigenses,  p.  473,  &c. 

2)  Ibid,  pp.137,  355.  6)  Thuan.  Hist.  1.  vi.  §  16,  vol.  i. 

3)  See  in  Bellarmine  De  Clericis,  p.  221  ;  in  Faber,  pp.  488,  489. 

1,  5,  pp.  5,  6  ;  in  Newman  on  Roman-  7)  Reiner  de  haeret,  c.  v.  in   Bibl. 

ism,  p.  92.  Patr.  vol.  xiii.  p.  300. 

4)  Perceval  on  Apost.  Succ.  p.  31;  8)  Reiner  de  haeret,  c.  v.  p.  300. 
Pylicdorf  cited  by  Bossuet,  iii.  p.  45;  9)  Ibid,  c.  v.  p.  300. 

Dr.  Allix,  Pied.  p.  239,  and  Albig.  p.  10)   Ibid,  c.  v.  p.  300. 

207.  11)   Ibid,  c.  v.  p.  300. 


CHAP.  II.]  WERE    PRESBYTERIAN.  511 

for  salvation ;  and  that  the  tradition  of  the  church  is  the  tradi- 
tion of  the  Pharisees.1  They  despise  all  ecclesiastical  cus- 
toms, which  are  not  read  in  the  gospel ;  such  as  Candlemas, 
Palm-Sunday,  the  reconcilement  of  penitents,  the  adoration 
of  the  cross  on  Good  Friday,  the  feast  of  Easter,  and  the  fes- 
tivals of  Christmas  and  the  saints.'2  In  further  confirmation 
of  these  views  it  is  to  be  mentioned,  that  Peter  Waldo  '  ex- 
pressed contempt  for  the  distinction  of  orders,  which  he  styles 
one  of  the  marks  of  the  beast' 3 

We  will  now  refer  to  some  of  their  own  original  docu- 
ments ;  and  first  to  '  The  Ancient  Discipline  of  the  Evangeli- 
cal Churches  in  the  Valleys  of  Piedmont.'  Perrin  calls  this 
the  discipline  under  which  the  Waldenses  and  Albigensis 
lived  ;  extracted  out  of  divers  authentic  manuscripts,  written 
in  their  own  language,  several  hundreds  of  years  before  Lu- 
ther or  Calvin.  The  original  is  in  a  Spanish  dialect,  which 
is  thought  rather  older  than  the  provincial  language  used 
in  the  confession  of  1120,  but  the  tongue  is  radically  the 
same.  The  Spanish,  with  slight  variations,  was  spoken 
in  Provence,  and  the  valleys.  In  article  2,  of  this  disci- 
pline,4 concerning  pastors,  it  is  said,  'all  those  who  are  to  be 
received  as  pastors  among  us,  while  they  remain  with  their 
relations,  they  entreat  us  to  receive  them  into  the  ministry, 
and  afterwards,  having  good  teslimonials,  they  are,  by  the 
imposition  of  hands,  admitted  to  the  office  of  preaching. 
Among  the  other  powers  which  God  has  given  to  his  servants, 
he  hath  given  them  authority  to  elect  the  leaders  who  govern 
the  people,  and  to  constitute  the  elders  in  their  charges,  ac- 
cording to  the  diversity  of  the  work  in  the  unity  of  Christ ; 
which  is  proved  by  the  saying  of  the  apostle  in  the  epistle  to 
Titus.'  '  When  any  of  us,  the  aforesaid  pastors,  fall  into  any 
gross  sin,  he  is  both  excommunicated  and  prohibited  from 
preaching.'  Here  there  is,  manifestly,  allusion  only  to  one 
order  of  ministers,  and  not  the  slightest  reference  to  three  or- 
ders of  bishops,  priests,  and  deacons. 

Again,  in  article  4,  concerning  elders  and  councils,  it  is  said, 
'  rulers  and  elders  are  chosen  out  of  the  people  according  to 
the  diversity  of  the  work,  in  the  unity  of  Christ.'  '  We  that 
are  pastors  assemble  once  a  year,  to  treat  of  our  affairs  in  a 
general  council.'  That  this  discipline  fully  accords  with  pres- 
byterianism,  may  be  further  evidenced,  by  the  approbation  it 

1)  Ibid,  c.v.p.  301.  their  ancient    documents,   in   Blair's 

2)  Ibid.  c.  v.  p.  301.  Hist,  of  the  Waldenses,  vol.  i.  appen- 

3)  Cited  by  Leger,  Perceval,  p.  31.  dix;  see  for  this  at  p.  533. 

4)  The  whole  is  given,  with  all 


512  THE    WALDENSES  [BOOK    III. 

received  from  all  the  reformers.1  '  Bucer,  the  Swiss  reformer, 
having  largely  conversed  with  two  of  the  Waldensian  pastors, 
declared,  that  they  have  preserved  among  them  the  discipline 
of  Christ,  which  constrains  us  to  give  them  this  praise.'  In 
1533,  Melancthon  wrote  them  as  follows :  '  in  reality  I  do  not 
at  all  disapprove  of  that  very  severe  manner  of  exercising  the 
discipline,  which  is  practiced  in  your  churches.  Would  to 
God  it  were  enforced  with  a  little  more  rigor  in  ours.'  Mr. 
Ackland  remarks,  '  if  the  value  of  different  systems  of  govern- 
ing be  estimated  by  their  results,  that  which  existed  in  the  Val- 
lensian  church  has  certainly  never  been  excelled.  The  synod, 
presided  over  by  the  moderator,  has  always  possessed  the 
chief  authority  in  the  Vallensian  church.  It  was  composed, 
as  at  present,  of  all  the  pastors,  and  a  portion  of  the  elders 
deputed  by  the  people.' 

Dr.  Gilly  pleads,  says  Mr.  Blair,2  from  article  2,  of  the 
discipline,  the  existence  of  'degrees  in  the  sacerdotal  orders' 
of  the  ancient  Waldenses  ;  but  said  article  shows  that  no 
other  superiority  was  admitted  among  the  Waldensian  pas- 
tors over  one  another,  except  what  arose  from  seniority  and 
experience,  which  is  admitted  in  every  church.  When  two 
went  together,  the  younger  was  to  be  guided  by  the  elder. 
They  did  not  distinguish  the  teaching  presbyter  from  the 
bishop.  They  had,  indeed,  three  orders  of  men  above  their 
ordinary  members,  the  bishop  or  teaching  elder,  the  lay  elder, 
and  the  deacon.  The  existence  of  the  second  class  is  clearly 
expressed  in  article  4,  of  the  foregoing  discipline,  for  they 
are  called  '  rulers  and  elders  chosen  out  of  the  people.'  The 
deacons  are  always  mentioned  as  talcing  charge  of  the  funds 
of  the  churches,  but  never  as  preaching.  Though  the  public 
money  is  mentioned  in  the  above  article,  yet  the  existence  of 
deacons  is  not  stated.  Probably  at  that  time  the  ministers 
and  lay  elders  were  able  to  take  charge  of  the  contributions. 
After  all,  these  three  orders  are  probably  just  what  Dr.  Allix 
means  by  bishops,  priests,  and  deacons.'  Mr.  Ackland,  also, 
objects  that  the  moderator  was  not  amenable  to  the  Walden- 
sian synod,  and  he  alone  '  could  confer  holy  orders  by  the 
imposition  of  hands;  and  he  only  had  authority  to  visit  the 
churches,  inquire  into  the  doctrine  and  practice  of  their 
pastors,  examine  at  his  discretion  the  whole  economy  of  the 
church,  and  reform  such  abuses  as  he  might  discover.'  But 
no  intimation  is  made  in  the  second  article  of  discipline,  that 
the  power  of  ordination  was  restricted  to  the  moderator. 
The   synod   doss   the  whole,  for   the   document  runs:  'we 

1 )  Leger,  part  i.  pp.  105, 199.  2)  Hist,  of  Wald.  i.  pp.  539,  540. 


CHAP  II.]  WERE  PRESBYTERIAN.  513 

appoint  them  their  lessons;  they  are,  by  the  imposition  of 
hands,  admitted  to  the  office  of  preaching.'  Whatever  may 
be  the  practice  of  the  present  Waldenses,  their  ancestors 
seem  to  have  ordained  ministers  by  the  moderator,  who  was 
joined  by  his  brethren  in  the  act  of  laying  on  hands.  Popular 
election  was  practiced  in  the  choice  of  all  church  officers. 
Leger  tells  us,  that  the  lay  elders  were  not  only  elected  by 
the  people  at  first,  but  the  congregations,  or  heads  of  families, 
appointed  every  year  the  elder,  who  was  to  represent  them  in 
the  synod.  But,  in  regard  to  episcopal  consecration,  Mr. 
Ackland,  himself,  informs  us,  that  '  this  ornament  of  our 
church-establishment,  so  justly  cherished  by  us,  is,  unques- 
tionably, no  longer  preserved  among  the  Vaudois.'  To  all 
such  assertions  and  surmises,  therefore,  we  oppose  what  shall 
be  now  adduced  from  their  ancient  standards,  the  express 
declarations  of  their  own  historians,  and  the  open  accusations 
of  their  prelatical  foes.  Thus  Perrin  alleges,1  that '  the  monk 
Reinerus  reported  many  things  concerning  the  vocation  of 
the  pastors  of  the  Waldenses,  which  are  mere  fictions;  as 
that  they  had  a  greater  bishop  and  two  followers,  whom  he 
called  the  elder  son,  and  the  younger,  and  a  deacon ;  that  he 
laid  his  hands  upon  others  with  a  sovereign  authority,  and 
sent  them  where  he  thought  good,  like  a  pope."1  Reinerus 
also  affirms,2  that  '  they  considered  prelates  to  be  but  Scribes 
and  Pharisees ;  that  the  pope  and  all  the  bishops  were  mur- 
derers, because  of  the  wars  they  Avaged ;  that  they  were  not 
to  obey  the  bishops,  but  God  only ;  that  in  the  church  no  one 
was  greater  than  another ;  that  they  iiated  the  very  name  of 
prelate,  as  pope,  bishop,  &c.'  A  similar  statement  of  their 
views  is  given  by  Aeneas  Sylvius :  '  the  Roman  bishop,  and 
all  bishops  are  equal.  Amongst  priests,  or  ministers  of  the 
gospel,  there  is  no  difference.  The  name  of  a  presbyter  does 
not  signify  a  dignity,  but  superior  merit.'  Mr.  Faber  quotes 
Pilichdorf,  also,  saying,  '  they  rejected  the  consecration  of 
bishops,  priests,  churches,  altars,'  &C. 

We  will  now  make  some  further  extracts  found  connected 
with  the  Book  on  Antichrist,  dated  1120,  and  1126. 3  In  the 
article  on  marriage  and  orders,  it  is  said  :4  '  as  touching  orders, 
we  ought  to  hold,  that  order  is  called  the  power  which  God 
gives  to  man,  duly  to  administer  or  dispense  unto  the  church 
the  word  and  the  sacraments.     But  we   have  nothing  in  the 

1)  In  Powell,  on  Apost.  Succ.  p.  Morland,  pp.   142-160.     Perrin,  1.  iii. 
181,  2d.  ed.  c.  1.     Leger,  i.  p.  71,  and  further  argu- 

2)  In  ibid.  p.  181.  ments  at  p.  505. 

3)  See   the  authorities  in  Blair's,  4)  See  Blair,  ibid,  p.  521. 
Hist,  of  Wald.   i.  p.  514.     They  are 

65 


514  THE   WALDENSES  [BOOK   III. 

scriptures  touching  such  orders,  as  they  pretend,  but  only  the 
custom  of  the  church.'  Again,  the  article  on  chrism  or 
confirmation,  is  as  follows  :x  '  now  to  speak  of  the  chrism, 
which  they  at  present  call  the  sacrament  of  confirmation, 
having  no  ground  at  all  in  the  scriptures]  &c.  Speaking  of 
the  Romish- prelacy  it  says,2  'his  ministers  are  called  false 
prophets,  lying  teachers,  ministers  of  darkness,  a  spirit  of 
error,  the  whore  in  the  Revelation,  the  mother  of  fornications, 
clouds  without  water,  withered  trees,  twice  dead,  plucked  up 
by  the  roots,  waves  of  the  raging  sea,  wandering  planets, 
Balaamites  and  Egyptians.'  '  And,  therefore,  let  every  one 
take  notice,  that  antichrist  could  not  come  in  any  wise,  but 
all  these  forementioned  things  must  needs  meet  together,  to 
make  up  a  complete  hypocrisy  and  falsehood,  namely,  the 
worldly-wise  men,  the  religious  orders,  the  pharisees,  minis- 
ters, doctors,  the  secular  power,  with  the  worldly  people 
conjoined.  He  wanted  yet  those  hypocritical  ministers,  and 
human  ordinances,  and  the  outward  show  of  those  religious 
orders.'  Again,  to  pass  by  other  quotations,  it  is  said,  '  he 
covers  his  iniquity  by  the  length  or  succession  of  time,  and 
allegeth  that  he  is  maintained  by  certain  wise  and  learned 
men,  and  by  religious  orders  of  certain  votaries  of  single  life, 
men  and  women,  virgins  and  widows ;  and  besides  by  a 
numberless  people,  of  whom,  it  is  said  in  the  Revelation,  '  that 
power  is  given  him  over  every  tribe,  language,  and  nation, 
and  all  that  dwell  on  the  earth  shall  worship  him.'  In  the 
third  place,  he  covers  his  iniquity  by  the  spiritual  authority 
of  the  apostles,  (that  is,  the  claim  of  apostolical  succession,) 
against  which  the  apostle  speaketh  expressly,  '  we  are  able 
to  do  nothing  against  the  truth,  there  is  no  power  given  us 
for  destruction.'3 

We  now  go  back  to  their  earliest  document,  '  the  celebrated 
'  Nobla  Leyczon,'  a  metrical  exposition  of  scripture  doctrine, 
which  exhibits  its  date,  A.  D.  1100,  in  a  line  of  the  poem : 

:  It  is  now  the  completion  of  the  eleventh  hundred  year.' 

From  the  character  also  of  the  writing,  the  structure  of  the 
language,  and  other  internal  marks  of  antiquity,  it  has  been 
pronounced  by  competent  judges  to  be  a  document  of  that 
period.4  In  this  it  is  said,  that  Christ  'called  the  twelve 
apostles,  which  were  rightly  so  named.'5  The  office  of 
pastors  is  thus  described  :6 

1)  See  Blair's  Hist.Wald.i.p.  522.  4)  See  Dr.  Gilly's  Vallenses,  p.  9, 

2)  Ibid,  pp.  505,506.  and  Blair  Hist.  Wald.  i.  p.  473. 

3)  Ibid,  p.  509.  5)  Blair,  ibid,  p.  478. 

6)  Ibid,  p.  482. 


CHAP.  II.]  WERE  PRESBYTERIAN.  515 

1  For  I  dare  say,  and  it  is  very  true, 

That  all  the  popes  which  have  been,  from  Sylvester  to  this  present, 

And  all  cardinals,  bishops,  abbots,  and  the  like, 

Have  no  power  to  absolve  or  pardon 

Any  creature  so  much  as  one  mortal  sin ; 

It  is  God  alone,  who  pardons,  and  no  other. 

But  this  ought  they  to  do  who  are  pastors, 

They  ought  to  preach  to  the  people,  and  pray  with  them, 

And  feed  them  often  with  divine  doctrine, 

And  chastise  the  sinners  with  discipline, 

Namely,  by  declaring  that  they  ought  to   repent.' 

Finally,  we  refer  to  their  '  catechism,'  dated  also  in  the 
year  A.  1).  1100. l  '  What  is  your  faith,'  asks  the  question. 
'  The  true  catholic  and  apostolic  faith,'  is  the  answer.  Again, 
'Dost  thou  believe2  in  the  holy  church?'  '  No,  for  it  is  a 
creature  ;  but  I  believe  that  there  is  one.'  '  What  is  that  which 
thou  believest,  concerning  the  holy  church  ?  '  'I  say,  that  the 
church  is  considered  two  manner  of  ways,  the  one  substan- 
tially, and  the  other  ministerially.  As  it  is  considered 
substantially,  by  the  holy  catholic  church,  is  meant,  all  the 
elect  of  God,  from  the  beginning  of  the  world  to  the  end,  by 
the  grace  of  God  through  the  merit  of  Christ,  gathered 
together  by  the  Holy  Spirit,  and  foreordained  to  eternal  life; 
the  number  and  names  of  whom  are  known  to  Him  alone  who 
has  elected  them.  And,  finally,  in  this  church  remains  none 
who  is  reprobate.  But  the  church  as  it  is  considered, 
according  to  the  truth  of  the  ministry,  is  the  company  of  the 
ministers  of  Christ,  together  with  the  people  committed  to 
their  charge,  using  the  ministry  by  faith,  hope,  and  charity.' 
'  By  what  dost  thou  know  the  church  of  Christ  ? '  '  By  the 
ministers  lawfully  called,  and  by  the  people  participating  in 
the  truth  of  the  ministry.'  '  By  what  marks  knowest  thou  the 
ministers  ? '  '  By  the  true  sense  of  faith,  by  sound  doc- 
trine, by  a  life  of  good  example,  and  by  the  preaching  of 
the  gospel,  and  by  a  due  administration  of  the  sacraments.' 
'  By  what  marks  knowest  thou  the  false  ministers  ?  '  '  By 
their  fruits,  by  their  blindness,  by  their  evil  works,  by  their 
perverse  doctrine,  and  by  their  undue  administration  of  the 
sacraments.'  '  By  what  knowest  thou  their  blindness  ?  ' 
'  When,  not  knowing  the  truth  which  necessarily  appertains 
to  salvation,  they  observe  human  inventions  as  ordinances  of 
God,  of  whom  it  is  verified  what  Isaiah  says,  and  which  is 
alleged  by  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  Matthew  15,  '  this  people 
honor  me  with  their  lips,  but  their  heart  is  far  from  me.  But 
in  vain  do  they  worship  me,  teaching  for  doctrines  the  com- 

1)  Blair's  Hist.  Wald.  i.  p.  4S4.  2)  Ibid,  p.  486. 


516  THE    WALDENSES    PRESBYTERIAN. 

mandments  of  men.' '  '  By  what  marks  is  the  undue  admin- 
istration of  the  sacraments  known  ? '  '  When  the  priests,  not 
knowing  the  intention  of  Christ  in  the  sacrament,  say,  that 
the  grace  and  the  truth  is  included  in  the  external  ceremonies, 
and  persuade  men  to  the  participation  of  the  sacrament, 
without  the  truth  of  faith,  of  hope,  and  of  charity.  But  the 
Lord  chargeth  those  who  are  his  to  take  heed  of  false 
prophets,  saying,  beware  of  the  pharisees,'  &c. 

We  need  add  nothing  to  what  has  been  adduced.  The 
presbyterian  character  of  the  Waldensian  churches,  both  now 
and  at  all  times,  is  indubitable  ;*  and  the  attempt  to  derive,  as 
prelatists  do,  a  divine  right  for  prelacy,  through  them,  is 
nothing  less  than  a  solemn  farce. 

1)   On  the  subject  of  the  Walden-  of  the  Albieanses.     Sims's  Historical 

ses,   the  reader  is   referred  to   Blair's  Def.  of  the  Waldenses.     Faber's  Val- 

Hist  of  the  Waldenses,  Edinb.  1833.  2  lenses  and  Albigenses.     Dr.  Wilson's 

vols.8vo.  Jones's  Hist,  of  the  Walden-  Prim.  Govt,  of  the  Ch.  pp.211,   218, 

ses,   Lond.    1816,   2    vols.  8vo.      Dr.  he.     Gilly's  Waldensian    Researches, 

AUix  on  the    Churches  of  Piedmont,  and  Vallenses.     Powell  on  the  Apost. 

and  Remarks  on  the  Ancient  Churches  Succ.     Plea  for  Presbyterianism,  &c. 


CHAPTER  III. 


THE  ANTIQUITY  OF  PRESBYTERY.    THE   SAME   SUBJECT 
CONTINUED. 


§  1.  The  Lollards,  the  Syria?i,  the  Hussite,  the  Bohemian, 
the  Episcopal  in  South  Carolina  in  1785,  the  Reformed 
and  the  Biscay  churches,  were  also  presbyterian. 

We  have  been  challenged  to  produce  one  single  church, 
from  the  days  of  the  apostles  to  the  period  of  the  reforma- 
tion, that  was  presbyterian  in  its  polity.  We  have  met  this 
challenge.  We  have  shown  that  all  the  churches  founded 
by  the  apostles,  by  the  apostolical  fathers,  and  by  the  primi- 
tive fathers,  were  presbyterian,  and  that  such  also  was  the 
character  of  the  churches  in  Gaul,  at  Alexandria,  in  Egypt, 
in  Scythia,  in  Bavaria,  in  the  East,  in  Britain,  in  Ireland,  in 
Scotland,  among  the  Culdees,  the  Paulicians,  the  Aerians, 
and  the  Waldenses.     We  now  proceed  to  notice  some  others. 

The  Lollards,  or  followers  of  Wickliffe,  were  presbyterian. 
See  on  this  subject  what  has  been  already  said.1 

The  Syrian  churches  were  presbyterian.  For  the  evidence 
on  this  point  see  also  our  previous  remarks.2 

The  churches  established  by  the  Hussites  were  also  pres- 
byterian. More  than  a  century  before  the  era  of  the  Saxon 
reformation,  even  in  the  fourteenth  century,  protestants  were 
found  in  Germany  who  maintained  a  long  and  obstinate 
struggle  for  their  religious  rights  against  the  church  of  Rome, 
until,  in  1457,  they  assumed  the  form  of  an  independent 
ecclesiastical  body,  under  the  name  of  the  United  Brethren. 
These  protestants  were  headed  by  the  two  celebrated  mar- 
tyrs, and  proto-reformers,  whose  blood  continues  to  cry 
to  heaven  against  her  who  is  drunk  with  the  blood  of  the 
saints.     Now  that  they  were  presbyterian,  appears,  first,  from 

1)  B.iii.  c.  2.  2)  B.  ii.  c.  6. 


518  THE    HUSSITE    CHURCHES  [BOOK   III. 

the  fact  that  both  these  reformers,  Huss  and  Jerome  of 
Prague,  were  indebted  for  their  views  of  scriptural  doctrine 
and  order  to  the  writings  of  Wicldiffe,  and  how  thoroughly 
imbued  they  are  with  the  views  of  presbyterians  we  have 
already  seen.1  The  books  of  Wicldiffe  were  carried  into 
Bohemia  by  Peter  Payne,  principal  of  Edmund  Hall, 
Oxford,  one  of  his  disciples.  He  fled  to  Bohemia,  where  he 
published  some  books  of  Wicldiffe,  which  were  greatly 
esteemed  by  Huss,  Jerome,  and  the  university  of  Prague.2 
A  young  nobleman  from  Bohemia,  who  studied  at  Oxford, 
in  1389,  carried  with  him,  on  his  return,  several  tracts  of 
Wicldiffe,  among  which  were  those  '  of  the  church  ; '  !  against 
the  clergy,'  &c.  From  him  Huss  obtained  these  books,  and 
ever  afterwards  maintained  the  doctrines  they  contained.3 
Secondly,  from  the  express  testimony  of  Huss,  himself. 
Thus,  he  says,  '  All  good  bishops  and  pastors  are  as  well 
the  apostles'  successors  as  the  pope,  nay,  rather,  he  being  a 
wicked  man.  John  Huff,  Articul.  4.  Fox,  p.  590.  Lambert, 
p.  1120.  Nay,  they  have  greater  and  more  excellent  titles, 
than  to  be  called  apostles'  successors ;  for  those  that  walk  in 
obedience  unto  God's  commandments,  our  Saviour  calleth 
them  his  sisters,  kinsfolk,  and  brethren.  Matt.  12:  50.  Ergo, 
the  pope  is  not  the  right  successor  of  Peter.' '4  The  disciples 
also,  of  Huss  and  Jerome  acted  in  conformity  with  this  doc- 
trine.5 yEneas  Sylvius  (afterwards  Pius  the. second,)  speaking 
of  the  Hussites,  says,  '  One  of  the  dogmas  of  this  pestife- 
rous sect,  is,  that  there  is  no  difference  of  order  among  those 
who  bear  the  priestly  office.'  This  account  is  confirmed  by 
the  historian  Thuanus,  who  expressly  speaks  of  their  opin- 
ions as  resembling  those  of  the  English  dissenters.  Huss 
undauntedly  declaimed  against  the  clergy,  the  cardinals,  and 
even  against  the  pope  himself.0  He  wrote  a  long  treatise 
about  the  church,  in  which  he  maintains,  that  the  church  con- 
sists of  those  only  who  are  predestinate ;  that  the  head  and 
foundation  of  it  is  Jesus  Christ;  that  the  pope  and  cardinals 
are  only  members  of  it,  and  the  other  bishops  are  successors 
to  the  apostles,  as  well  as  they ;  that  no  one  is  obliged  to 
obey  them,  if  their  commands  are  not  agreeable  to  the  law  of 
God ;  and  that  an  excommunication,  which  is  groundless, 

1)  See   Conder's  Analytic   View  4)  Dr.  Willet's  Syn.  Pap.  p.  167. 
of  All  Religions,  p.  247.  5)  Dr.  Miller  on  the  Min.  p.  138. 

2)  Middleton's  Evang.  Biog.  Life  6)  Middleton's    Evang.    Biog.   1, 
of  Huss,  vol.  i.  p.  30.     Lond.  1S16.  30,  36. 

3)  See  also    Bost's    Hist,  of  the 
Moravians,  pp.  11, 13. 


CHAP.  III.]  WERE    PRESBYTERIAN.  519 

hath  no  effect.'  He  wrote  also  three  large  volumes  against 
the  clergy ;  the  first  entitled,  '  The  Anatomy  of  the  Members 
of  Antichrist.'  The  second,  '  Of  ihe  Kingdom  of  the  Peo- 
ple, and  the  Life  and  Manners  of  Antichrist.'  The  third, 
'  Of  the  Abomination  of  Priests,  and  Carnal  Monks,  in  the 
Church  of  Jesus  Christ.'  Besides  these,  he  wrote  several 
other  Tracts,  on  Traditions,  The  Unity  of  the  Church,  Evan- 
gelical Perfection,  the  Mystery  of  Iniquity,  and  the  Discovery 
of  Antichrist.  He  taught,  also,  that  a  prelate  is  no  prelate 
while  he  is  in  mortal  sin  ;  that  a  bishop  is  no  bishop,  while 
he  is  in  mortal  sin.  We  thus  perceive  how  entirely  Huss 
agreed  with  Wield iffe,  and  how  completely  he  repudiates  the 
whole  scheme  of  prelatical  apostolical  succession. 

Thirdly.  From  the  fact  that  their  own  writers,  and  their  ene- 
mies, uniformly  represent  them  as  agreeing  with  the  Walden- 
ses,  with  whom,  afterwards,  they  formed  a  correspondence, 
and  a  coalition.  '  They  began,'  says  vFmeas  Sylvius,  '  to 
bark  against  all  the  priests;  and  seceding  from  the  catholic 
church  they  embraced  the  impious  and  mad  sect  of  the 
Waldenses.' l  Fourthly,  from  the  fact  that  they  were  subse- 
quently merged  into  the  Bohemian  brethren,  who  regarded 
Huss  as  one  of  their  fathers,  according  to  the  following  verse 
taken  from  Comenius.2 

Hussi  Sancte  cinis,  gaude  gaude  inter  arenas 

Per  sobolem  toto  vivis  in  orbe  tuam, 
Vivis  et  ostendis  tandem  hostibus  ignea  verum, 

Tollere  quod  nequeat  flamma  minaxque  rogus. 

Dust  of  St.  Huss  rejoice  in  thine  urn, 

In  us  thy  seed  thou  dost  to  life  return, 
Thou  livest  to  show  to  the  world  that  thou  canst  burn, 

Nor  can  dire  flames  truth  or  thy  zeal  adjourn. 

And,  fifthly,  from  the  express  testimony  of  their  Romish  per- 
secutors. iEneas  Sylvius  thus  describes  them.3  '  The  doc- 
trines of  the  pestilential  and  lately  damned  faction  are:  That 
the  chief  priest  of  Rome  is  equal  with  other  bishops ;  that 
there  is  no  difference  among  priests ;  that  priesthood  is  not  a 
dignity,  but  that  grace  and  virtue  only  give  the  preference  ; 
that  souls  separating  out  of  the  body  are  either  immediately 
plunged  into  hell,  or  advanced  to  eternal  joys  ;  that  priests 
ought  to  be  poor,  and  only  to  content  themselves  with  alms  ; 
and  that  every  one  has  liberty  to  preach  the  word  of  God.' 

1)  Blair's  Hist,  of  the  Wald.  vol.  3)  Blair's  Hist.  World,  2,  5.     See 
ii.  p.  5.                                                           a  very  interesting  history  of  this  per- 

2)  Comenius's  Exhortation  to  the     secuted  people,  in  this  work,  c.  i.  and 
Ch.  of  Bohemia.    Lond.  1661,  p.  2.  ii.     See  also  Bost's  Hist,  of  the  Mo- 
ravians, ch.  i.  and  ii. 


520  THE    BOHEMIAN    CHURCHES  [BOOK   III. 

This  leads  us  to  observe,  that  the  Bohemian  church  was 
essentially  presbyterian.  Comenius,  the  last  bishop  who 
survived  'the  savage  tyranny'  of  popery,  and  'the  system- 
atic extirpation  of  protestantism  throughout  those  countries 
which  have  been  called  'the  Goshen  of  the  middle  ages,'  u 
styles  the  Bohemian  '  one  of  the  ancientest,  soundest,  purest 
churches  in  the  world.'2  He  relates  its  origin  as  follows. 
'  This  is,'  saith  our  author,  and  Reginvolecus,  and  ./Eneas 
Sylvius,  who  proved  afterward  pope  Pius,  and  differ  but  little 
from  him,  '  that  Illyricum  planted  by  the  great  doctor  of  the 
Gentiles,  (Rom.  15 :  19,)  this  is  that  Dalmatia  watered  by 
his  son  and  evangelist  Titus,  (2  Tim.  4:  10.)  This  is  that 
people  which  Irenaeus,  their  neighbor,  commends  with  this 
eulogy,  that  they  never  did  either  believe  or  teach  otherwise 
than  as  the  apostles  and  disciples.  This  is  that  (afterward 
called  Slavonick  church)  where  Hieronym  was  born,  and 
where  he  and  some  of  the  Greek  fathers,  Cyril,  and  Metho- 
dius, bestowed  their  pious  labors  in  the  service  of  the  gospel. 
Of  this  came  those  oriental  churches,  out  from  which,  by  the 
means  of  the  said  worthies,  the  gospel  was  transmitted  into 
Croatia,  Bosnia,  Moravia,  Polonia,  and  Bohemia,  where  this 
church  took  root  most,  till  in  the  year  1450,  it  ran  up  to  an 
head,  and  fruit,  and  was  formed  into  the  unity  of  the  brethren 
of  Bohemia  by  Wickliffe,  Jerome  of  Prague,  and  especially 
John  Huss,  from  whom  they  were  called  Hussites.' 

That  the  Bohemian  church  recognised  an  office  similar  to 
that  found  among  the  Waldenses,  which  implied  general 
presidency  and  supervision  over  the  other  clergy,  and  also 
permanency,  is  granted  ;  and  that  they  called  the  incumbent 
of  this  office  bishop  is  also  admitted.  But  this,  as  we  have 
fully  seen,  does  not  constitute  the  essence  of  prelacy,  nor  is 
it  inconsistent  with  the  fundamental  principles  of  the  presby- 
terian system.3  For  unless  this  office  was  believed  to  be  of 
divine  appointment,  to  be  superior  to  that  of  the  presbyterate, 
and  to  possess  rights  and  powers  independent  of  the  presby- 
ters, it  does  not  prove  the  system  of  which  it  forms  a  part  to 
be  prelatical.  What,  then,  was  the  character  of  this  episco- 
pacy? Let  Comenius  answer.4  'He  presents  us,'  says 
Tumarchus,  who  introduces  his  work,  '  with  a  moderate, 
godly  episcopacy,  wherein  we  have  a  bishop.  1.  A  degree 
for  order,  not  of  order.     2.  For  labor,  not  secular  dignity, 

1)  Conder's  Analytic  View  of  All  3)  Lect.    on     the    Apost.     Succ. 
Religions,  pp.  249,  250.                               Lect.  ii. 

2)  Ibid.  4)  Ibid,  as  above,  pp.  6.  7. 


CHAP.    III.]  WERE    PRESBYTERIAN.  521 

dominion,  not  domination.  3.  Having  no  more  power  but 
what  is  freely  delegated  and  devolved  on  him  by  ihe  election 
and  consent  of  the  ministers,  not  some,  but  all  concerned. 
4.  Performing  ordination  ordinarily,  in  a  general  synod, 
and  jurisdiction  in  an  ecclesiastical  senate,  to  which  he  him- 
self is  subject.  5.  Not  countenancing  mal-administration, 
by  admitting  any  unworthy  person  to  orders  or  the  Lord's 
supper.  6.  Without  the  leaven  of  Arminianism,  page  52. 
7.  Promoting  the  vigilancy  of  pastors  in  the  exercise  of 
discipline.'  These  bishops,  they  called  '  antistes,' l  and  '  com- 
presbyters,'2  and  'superintendents.'3  Comenius  acknowl- 
edges that  bishop  and  presbyter  are  the  same  by  divine  right.4 
He  says,  that  when  deliberating  about  perpetuating  the 
succession  of  the  ministry,  before  they  concluded  to  send  to 
the  Waldenses,5  'they  remembered  that  Rokyzan  did  often 
affirm,  professedly,  that  all  things  must  be  reformed,  to  the 
very  foundations;  that,  therefore,  ordination  was  to  be  set  on 
foot  at  home,  by  that  power  which  Christ  hath  given  to  his 
church.  That  while  they  had  some  ordained  among  them, 
they  should  ordain  others,  and  they  again  others  still,  to 
succeed  them  ;  and  their  desires  much  inclined  this  way,  as 
also  their  judgments.  But  there  was  one  thing  which  did 
strike  their  hearts  with  some  fear,  whether  that  ordination 
would  be  legitimate  enough  if  a  presbyter  ordain  a  presbyter 
without  a  bishop,  and  how  they  should  be  able  to  defend 
such  ordination,  if  it  should  be  called  in  question,  either 
amongst  others  or  their  own.' 

That  the  brethren  fully  believed  in  the  divine  right  and 
validity  of  presbyterian  ordination,  and  only  sought  episcopal 
in  conformity  to  the  current  prejudices  of  the  age,  is  posi- 
tively asserted  by  their  bishop  and  historian,  the  Rev.  John 
Holmes.6  In  order  to  discuss  the  very  point  suggested  by 
Comenius,  a  synod  was  called  in  1467.  '  In  this  assembly,' 
says  Mr.  Holmes,7  'two  questions  were  principally  agitated. 
The  first  was,  whether  ordination  by  a  number  of  presbyters, 
was  equally  valid  with  that  performed  by  a  bishop  ?  The 
decision  was  to  this  effect:  that  presbyterian  ordination  was 
consonant  to  apostolic  practice,  1  Tim.  4:  14,  and  the  usage 
of  the  primitive  church,  which  might  be  proved  from  the 
writings   of  the  primitive  fathers ;   consequently,  the  newly- 

1)  Comenius,  ibid,  p.  46.  6)  See  also   Bost's    Hist,   of  the 

2)  Ibid,  p.  56.  Moravians,  p.  49. 

3)  Ibid,  p.  38.  7)  Hist,  of  the  United  Brethren, 

4)  Dr.  Miller  on  the  Min.  p.  139.  vol.  i.  pp.  50  -  53. 

5)  Comenius,  ibid,  pp.  36, 37. 

66 


522  THE    BOHEMIAN    CHURCHES  [BOOK  III. 

elected  ministers  might  be  ordained  by  those  now  exercising 
the  sacred  functions  of  the  gospel  among  them,  and  who 
had  previously  been  calixtine  clergymen,  in  priest's  orders. 
But  as  for  many  ages  no  ordination  had  been  deemed  valid 
in  the  reigning  church,  unless  performed  by  a  bishop,  they 
resolved  to  use  every  possible  means  for  obtaining  episcopal 
ordination ;  that  their  enemies  might  thus  be  deprived  of 
every  pretext  for  discrediting  the  ministry  among  them.'  In 
seeking  this  episcopacy,  they  went  to  the  Waldenses,  the 
character  of  whose  bishops  we  have  seen,  and  in  what 
estimation  they  stood  among  prelatists;  and  there  they 
received  ordination  at  the  hands  of  one  man.  But  we  are 
not  left  to  inferences.  Their  own  Book  of  Order  or  Disci- 
pline, page  20,1  has  the  following  express  words:  'it  is  true, 
the  Bohemians  have  certain  bishops  or  superintendents,  who 
are  conspicuous  for  age  and  gifts ;  and  chosen  by  the  suffra- 
ges of  all  the  ministers,  for  the  keeping  of  order,  and  to  see 
that  all  the  rest  do  their  office.  Four,  five,  or  six  have  they, 
as  need  requires ;  and  each  of  these  has  his  diocese.  But  the 
dignity  of  these  above  other  ministers,  is  not  founded  in  the 
prerogative  of  honors  or  revenues,  but  of  labors  and  cares  for 
others.  And,  according  to  the  apostles'  rules,  a  presbyter  and 
bishop  are  one  and  the  same  thing.' 

Their  Book  of  Order,  called  '  Ratio  Disciplinae  Ordinis- 
que,'  &c,  was  first  adopted  in  1616,  and  again  in  1632.  It 
was  reprinted  by  Comenius,  in  1660.  In  his  notes  added 
to  it,-  Comenius  says,  'presbyter,  (a  greek  word,  which  in 
latin  signifies  seniorcm,  elder,)  is  given  by  the  apostles,  both 
to  the  pastors  of  the  church,  and  also  to  their  assistants,  in 
watching  the  flock,  who  do  not  labor  in  word  and  doctrine? 
He  also  says,  '  it  is  questioned  if  it  be  better  that  the  presi- 
dency be  stated  or  ambulatory.'3  He  further  affirms,4  'that 
these  superintendents  are  not  to  have  worldly  wealth  nor 
honors,  nor  coercive  power  over  others ;  but  to  be  subject  to 
all,  as  every  one  is  to  them.  Thus,  (saith  he,)  to  the  seniors 
of  the  Bohemian  brethren,  there  was  associated  one  or  two 
conseniors ;  and  even  from  these  joined  together,  an  account 
of  their  actings  was  required  by  synodical  authority,  neither 
did  they  sit  in  secular  courts  and  judicatories.' 

The  following  extracts  from  their  confession  of  faith  and 
religion,  presented  to  Ferdinand,  king  of  Bohemia,  in  1535, 
and  previously  to  Uladislaus,  in  1508,  will  confirm  what  has 

1)  Dr.  Miller  on  the  Min.  p.  354.  3)  Annot.  ad.  ord.   Eccl.    Bohem. 

2)  See    Plea  for   Presbytery,  pp.     p.  87. 
356,357.  4)   Ibid,  p.  89. 


CHAP,  in.]  WERE    PRESBYTERIAN.  523 

been  said.  In  article  9,  on  the  overseers  or  ministers,  it  is 
taught,1  'that  the  ministers  of  the  church,  to  whom  the 
administration  of  the  words  and  sacraments  is  committed, 
ought  to  be  rightly  ordained  according  to  the  rule  prescribed 
by  the  Lord  and  his  apostles.  And  for  undertaking  this 
office,  that,  from  among  the  godly  and  faithful  people, 'men 
may  be  called,  full  of  faith  and  without  blame,  having  gifts 
necessary  for  this  ministry,  besides  an  honest  conversation  of 
life,  and  that  these  be  first  of  all  tried  ;  then  after  prayer, 
made  by  the  elders,  that  they  be  by  imposition  of  hands  for 
this  office,  confirmed  in  the  congregation.'  '  But  if  it  happen 
among  us,  that  any  one  of  the  order  of  priests  fall  into  any 
crime  or  error,  or  that  he  is  negligent  of  his  duty,  he  is 
at  first  admonished  in  a  paternal  manner,  then  he  is  corrected 
by  brotherly  chastisement,  who,  if  he  contends  to  be  pertina- 
cious, and  to  despise  the  admonitions  of  the  brethren  and  of 
the  whole  church,  he  is  first  deprived  of  all  ecclesiastical 
ministry  and  office,  he  is  also  afterwards  excluded  from  the 
communion  of  the  church  itself.'  Again,  in  article  26,  on 
pastors,  after  describing  the  wickedness  of  the  Romish  minis- 
ters, it  is  said,2  '  by  diabolical  ambition  and  tyranny,  they  have 
attributed  to  themselves  the  dominion  almost  of  the  whole 
world.  They  usurp  the  power  and  authority  of  princes  ; 
having  deserted  their  proper  office,  which  was  to  feed  the 
Hock  of  God,  to  oversee  it ;  not  unwillingly,  but  with  a  ready 
and  prompt  mind,  on  account  of  God ;  but  not  to  occupy 
empire  over  the  clergy,  even  as  that  threefold  crown  of  anti- 
christ sufficiently  declares,  the  kingdom  also  of  bishops  and 
(d)bots,  who  at  last  shall  receive  the  reward  of  their  iniquity.' 
That  these  churches  fully  concurred  with  ours,  on  the  subject 
of  ruling  elders,  will  appear  from  the  following  extracts  from 
the  'Ratio  Disciplinae,'  &c.,  by  Comenius.3  In  the  first 
chapter,  we  have  an  account  of  the  elders,  '  presbyteri  sen 
sensores  morum.'  '  The  elders  are  honest,  grave,  pious  men, 
chosen  out  of  the  whole  congregation,  lor  this  end,  that  they 
may  see  to  the  good  conversation  of  all  the  rest.'  In  page 
23,  it  is  said,  'when  ministers  are  to  be  ordained  in  an 
assembly,  each  pastor,  who  is  to  bring  his  deacon  or  deacons 
along  with  him,  acquaints  his  church,  that  is,  the  elders,  or 
censors  of  manners,  who,  by  their  letters  1o  the  assembly,  give 
a  testimonial  of  the  life  and  conversation  of  his  deacon,  &c. 
In  page  36,  we  are  told,  before   giving  notice  of  the  holy 

1)  Blair's  Hist,   of  Wald.  vol.   ii.  2)  Blair,  p.  604 

pp.  57G-57S, where  the  whole  maybe  3)  See  Plea  lor  Prcsb.  p.  35G. 

i'ounJ. 


524  THE  MORAVIAN  CHURCHES         [BOOK  III. 

supper,  the  pastor  calls  the  eldership,  and  asks  if  the  holy 
communion  may  be  appointed  at  this  or  that  time.  If  there 
be  any  impediments,'  &c.  As  to  its  observance,  'with 
due  reverence,  first  the  pastor,  with  such  ministers  of  the 
church,  as  are  present,  draw  near,  then  the  magistrates,  then 
the  church  elders,  (seniores  ecclesise  seu  presbyteri,)  and 
afterwards  the  rest  of  the  people ;  one  or  two  of  the  elders 
(uno  et  altero  presbyteris)  taking  care  that  there  be  no  inde- 
cency.' These  elders  are  regularly  ordained.  '  The  ordina- 
tion of  elders,  when  required,  is  thus  performed  :  all  the  men 
are  ordered  to  present  themselves  early,  before  the  evening 
sermon,  and  there  an  admonition  being  given  by  the  visiters, 
(praemissa  a  visitatoribus  adrnonitione,)  they  choose,  by  free 
votes,  whom  they  judge  worthy  of  that  office.  They  who  are 
chosen  by  a  plurality  of  votes,  after  evening  sermon  is  ended, 
are  called  forth  by  the  visiter,  and  the  duties  of  their  office 
(all  the  assembly  listening)  are  read  to  them.  And  they,  by 
word  and  with  the  lifted  hand,  promise  to  the  bishops  of  the 
unity,  (antistatibus  unitatis,)  to  the  pastor  and  to  the  church, 
faithfulness  and  diligence.  And  that  in  the  church  also  they 
may  discharge  the  duty  of  watchmen,  they  are  honored  with 
a  peculiar  seat,  that  they  may  the  more  conveniently  see  the 
people.' 

To  what  has  been  adduced  in  the  way  of  positive  testi- 
mony, we  may  add  the  opinion  of  Dr.  Heylin,  the  most  big- 
oted of  prelatists,  and  one  of  the  greatest  of  all  defamers  of  purity 
and  truth.  In  the  History  of  Presbyterians,  he  says,1  '  about 
the  year  1400,  we  find  a  strong  party  to  be  raised  amongst 
the  Bohemians,  against  some  superstitions  and  corruptions  in 
the  church  of  Rome;  occasioned,  as  some  say,  by  reading 
the  works  of  Wickliffe,  and  by  the  diligence  of  Picardus,  a 
Fleming,  as  is  affirmed  by  some  others,  from  whom  they  had 
the  name  of  Picards.  By  which  confession  it  appears,  that 
they  ascribe  no  power  to  the  civil  magistrate,  in  the  concern- 
ments of  the  church;  that  they  had  fallen  upon  a  way  of 
ordaining  ministers  amongst  themselves,  without  recourse  unto 
the  bishop,  or  any  such  superior  officer,  as  a  superintendent; 
and,  finally,  that  they  retained  the  use  of  excommunication, 
and  other  ecclesiastical  censures,  for  the  chastising  of  irregular 
and  scandalous  persons.' 

Aeneas  Sylvius  might  be  quoted  to  the  same  purpose,2  and 
also  Howell/3  but  it  is  needless.    It  is  only  necessary  to  add, 

1)  Dr.  Miller  on  the  Min.  pp.  354,  3)  Fam.  Letters,  vol.   iii.  p.  295, 
355.                                                                 in  ibid. 

2)  Ori°.  et  Gest.  Bohem.  ch.  liii. 
in  Jameson's  Cyp.  Isot.  p.  299. 


CHAP  III.]  ARE    PRESBYTERIAN.  525 

that  their  form  of  discipline;  was  approved  by  Bucer,  Luther, 
Calvin,  P.  Martyr,  Musculus,  Zanchius,  Beza,  fcc.1  Of 
Calvin,  Coraenius  says,  that  such  was  his  admiration  of  their 
discipline,  that  when  '  called  to  exercise  his  ministry  at  Geneva, 
he  creeled  this  kind  of  discipline,  and  it  is  famous  at  this  day 
in  all  the  world.'2 

The  Moravian  churches  are  also  presbytcrian.  The  . 
churches  of  Moravia  united  with  those  of  Bohemia,  in  1457,  }■ 
in  forming  '  The  United  Brethren.'  All,  therefore,  that  has 
been  offered  in  proof  of  the  essential  presbyterianism  of  that 
church,  applies  of  course  to  them.  After  the  extinction  of  /. 
the  ancient  church  in  1627,  these  churches  seemed  dead,  until, 
in  the  year  1715,  a  great  revival  sprung  up,  like  a  phoenix 
from  the  buried  ashes,  in  different  parts  of  Moravia,  which 
resulted  in  the  establishment  at  Herrnhut,  and  the  organization  U 
of  the  present  Moravian  church.3  The  ecclesiastical  princi- 
ples of  this  church,  as  far  as  they  are  connected  with  our 
present  subject,  are  these,  as  given  by  the  Rev.  A.  Bost,  of  ;, 
Geneva,  in  his  History.4  In  article  2,  '  of  the  Presbytery  or 
Consistory,'  it  is  said,  'from  the  brethren  of  the  last,  class, 
(that  is,  those  who  have  given  full  evidence  of  their  piety,) 
were  chosen,  in  every  church,  by  a  plurality  of  votes,  the 
elders,  from  three  to  eight  in  number,  in  proportion  to  the 
size  of  the  church.  The  men  selected  for  this  office  were 
pious,  grave,  upright,  and  such  as  were  a  pattern  to  their  own  .' 
families  in  all  things;  and  they  always  acted  in  concert  with 
the  pastor,  for  whose  maintenance  it  was  their  business  to 
provide,  laboring  with  him,  at  the  same  time,  for  the  spiritual 
improvement  of  the  flock.  They  unitedly  devised  means  for 
promoting  love  among  the  members  of  the  church,  preventing 
every  kind  of  disorder,  and  correcting,  as  soon  as  possible, 
without  publicity,  the  evils  they  might  discover.  Once  in 
three  months,  they  visited  the  houses  of  the  brethren,  in 
order  to  observe  the  conduct  of  each  member  of  the  family  ; 
to  ascertain  whether  every  one  was  laboring  diligently  in  his 
calling;  whether  those  who  were  in  trade  conducted  their 
affairs  aright;  whether  family  worship  was  kept  up;  whether 
such  as  filled  public  stations  acquitted  themselves  faithfully, 
&c.  Of  all  these  things  they  made  a  report  to  the  pastor. 
They  assisted  the  poor,  with  money  contributed  by  the  mem- 
bers of  the  church,  and  deposited  in  a  box  for  that  purpose. 

1)  See  in  Comenius's  Exhort,  as  4)  Ibid,  ch.  vi.p.  129,  &c.    See  al- 
above.  so   Concise    Hist.   Acct.  ii.  §  21,  and 

2)  Ibid.  p.  49.  Conder's  Analytic  View,  p.  203. 

3)  Bosfs  Hist,  of  Morav.  Ch.  vii. 


526  THE    MORAVIANS  ARE    PRESBYTERIAN.  [BOOK    III. 

This  was  in  addition  to  the  general  collections  on  festivals, 
and  fast  days,  and  at  the  Lord's  supper.  Brethren  appointed 
for  the  purpose  kept  the  account  of  this  money.  Four  times 
in  the  year  they  made  other  collections,  to  defray  the  expenses 
of  the  worship  of  God,  and  the  maintenance  of  poor  minis- 
ters, or  for  persons  banished  for  the  sake  of  the  gospel. 
Every  year  they  gave  an  account  to  the  church,  of  the  receipts 
and  expenditures.  The  elders  also  visited  the  sick,  and  gave 
them  exhortations  and  advice,  particularly  applicable  to  their 
circumstances.  The  women  also  had  among  them  female 
elders,  who,  as  mothers  in  the  house  of  God,  watched  over 
the  widows,  married  women,  and  younger  females,  exhorting 
them  to  peace  and  purity. 

In  reference  '  to  the  officers  of  the  church,'  it  is  said,  '  the 
administration1  of  the  word  and  sacraments  is  performed 
either  by  ministers  who  have  received  ordination  from  bish- 
ops of  the  church,  of  the  brethren,  or  by  such  as  have  been 
ordained  in  the  Lutheran  or  Calvinist  church?  '  The  breth- 
ren improve  these  external  church  privileges,  and  the  liberty 
connected  with  them,  in  having  the  ministers  of  their  church 
ordained  by  their  own  bishops  ;  but  the  direction  of  the  unity 
of  the  brethren,  in  general,  or  that  of  individual  congrega- 
tions, is  not  committed  to  the  bishops,  as  such;  but  they,  as 
well  as  the  presbyters  and  deacons  ordained  by  them,  and 
the  ministers  who  have  received  Lutheran  or  Calvinist  ordi- 
nation, together  with  all  other  servants  of  the  congregation  of 
the  brethren,  are  subordinate  to  a  board  of  conference  of 
elders,  appointed  by  the  general  synod,  to  whom  the  direc- 
tion of  the  whole  of  the  unity  of  the  brethren  is  intrusted, 
and  without  commission  from  whom  bishops  are  not  empow- 
ered  to  ordain.  But  all  ordinations  by  the  Lutheran  or  Cal- 
vinist churches  established  by  law  in  different  countries,  are 
admitted  as  equally  valid  with  those  of  the  church  of  the 
brethren.  The  superiority  of  the  bishop  did  not  consist  in 
greater  honor  or  higher  salary,  but  in  a  greater  measure  of 
labor  and  responsibility.  Every  bishop  was  bound  to  refer 
all  important  matters  to  the  judgment  of  his  colleagues  ;  and 
this  union  of  bishops  formed  the  ecclesiastical  council.  From 
this,  there  was  an  appeal  to  the  general  synod,  whose  decis- 
ion was  final.  Every  bishop  had  two  or  three  co-bishops, 
who  had  seats  in  the  ecclesiastical  council,  and  assisted,  or  if 
necessary  supplied  the  place,  of  the  bishops.'  '  The  synods, 
which  are  held  every  three  or  four  years,  are  composed  of  the 

1)   Concise  Hist.  Account,  p.  24.     Conder,  pp.  254  -  256. 


CHAP.  III.]    ON    THE    REFORMED    AND    BISCAYAN    CHURCHES     527 

bishops,  with  iheir  co-bishops,  the  civil  seniors,  and  '  such 
servants  of  the  church,  and  of  the  congregations  of  the 
brethren,  as  are  called  to  the  synod  by  the  former  ciders  con- 
ference, appointed  by  the  previous  synod,  or  commissioned 
to  attend  it  as  deputies  from  particular  congregations;  togeth- 
er with,  (in  Germany,)  the  lords  or  ladies  of  the  manors,  or 
proprietors  of  the  land  on  which  regular  settlements  are 
erected,  provided  they  be  members  of  the  unity.  From  one 
synod  to  another,  the  direction  of  the  external  and  internal 
affairs  of  the  church  of  the  brethren  is  committed  to  a  board, 
consisting  of  bishops  and  elders  chosen  by  the  synod,  and 
individually  confirmed  by  lot,  which  bears  the  name  of  '  The 
Elder's  Conference  of  the  Unity  of  the  Brethren." 

In  the  form  of  discipline  presented  by  Mr.  Bost,  a  full,  de- 
tailed account  is  given  of  the  duties  of  'the  pastor,1  the 
deacons,  the  acolythes,  (or  young  candidates  for  the  minis- 
try,) and  of  the  bishops.  The  bishops  '  were  nominated  by 
the  ministers,  but  not  reordained.2  They  may  be  dismissed, 
from  their  othce  again,  as  seven  have  been  on  account  of 
illness.3  To  these'  testimonies  we  will  only  refer  to  the 
declarations  of  Spangenberg,  in  his  '  Exposition  of  Christian 
Doctrine  as  taught  in  the  Protestant  Church  of  the  United 
Brethren.'4 

We  would  further  add,  according  to  the  evidence  already 
presented,  that  all  the  reformed  churches,  throughout  Europe 
and  America,  with  the  single  exceptions  of  the  Romish 
mother  and  the  Anglican  daughter,  are  presbyterian. 

Heylin  also  informs  us,5  'that  the  people  of  Biscay,  in 
Spain,  admitted  of  no  bis  hopsto  come  among  them  ;  for  when 
Ferdinand,  the  catholic,  came  in  progress,  accompanied 
among  others  with  the  bishop  of  Pampelone,  the  people 
rose  up  in  arms,  drove  back  the  bishop,  and  gathering  up  all 
the  dust  which  they  thought  he  had  trod  on,  (lung  it  into 
the  sea.  Which  story,  had  it  been  only  recorded  by  him, 
would  have  been  of  higher  credit.  But  we  read  the  same  in 
a  Spanish  chronicle,  who  saith  more  than  the  doctor,  for  he 
tells  us  that  the  people  threw  that  dust  that  the  bishop  or  his- 
mule  had  trod  on  into  the  sea,  with  curses  and  impreca- 
tions ;  which  certainly,  saith  he,  was  not  done  without  some 
mystery,  those  people  not  being  void  of  religion,  but  supcr- 
stitiously  devout,  as  the  rest  of  the  Spaniards  arc  ;  '  so  that 

1)  P.  132-135.  4)  Transl.  by  La  Trobe,  2d   ed. 

2)  P.  138.  Bath,  1706,  pp.  417,  429. 

3)  P.  139.  5)  Geogr.  p.5"),  in  Smectymnuus, 

p.  17. 


528     SOUTH  CAROLINA  PRESBYTERIAN  IN  1785.  [BOOK  III. 

there  is  one  consreofation  in  the  christian  world  in  which  this 
government  hath  met  with  contradiction. 

The  episcopal  churches  in  South  Carolina  were  all  pres- 
byterian  in  1785,  that  is,  they  held  to  the  order  of  presbyters 
as  alone  sufficient  to  perpetuate  the  succession  of  the  minis- 
try. This  will  appear  from  the  following  facts  :*  that  'early 
in  1785  the  clergy  of  South  Carolina  met,  and  agreed  to  send 
delegates  to  the  next  general  meeting,  but  in  complying  with 
the  invitation  to  cooperate  in  the  measures  necessary  to  effect 
a  general  union,  they  accompanied  their  compliance  with  an 
unequivocal  proof  of  their  sense  of  the  independence  of  the 
South  Carolina  church,  for  they  annexed  to  it  an  understand- 
ing '  that  no  bishop  was  to  be  settled  in  that  state.'  In  fact, 
bishop  White  admits,  that  such  was  '  the  opposition  to  the 
very  principle  of  episcopacy,'  then  existing  in  South  Caro- 
lina, that  it  was  only  by  proposing  to  them  the  above  declar- 
ation and  express  proviso  against  bishops,  they  were  induced 
to  unite  in  the  organization  at  all.2 

§  2.     The  presbyterian  church  the  oldest  of  all  others. 

From  the  reviews  we  have  now  taken,  it  appears,  that  the 
presbyterian  church  is  the  oldest  of  all  others.  If  we  trace 
the  visible  church  up  to  its  original  organization  in  the  cove- 
nant made  with  Abraham,  we  find  a  ministerial  parity.3  If 
we  contemplate  it  as  it  was  reconstructed  under  Moses,  we 
find  but  one  order  of  ministers;  the  priests  having  one  of 
their  own  body,  chosen  by  themselves,  and  without  reordina- 
tion,  set  over  them  as  their  president,  and  having  also  ruling 
elders  chosen  from  among  the  laity.  In  one  form  or  other 
our  church  has  existed  from  the  very  beginning  of  time,  and 
carried  a  multitude  of  souls  safely  through  to  the  port  of 
heaven.  Like  a  river,  now  narrow  and  now  expanded  and 
still  increasing,  it  has  ever  flowed  along,  bearing  on  its  wave, 
innumerable  blessings.4  To  the  presbyterian  church  may, 
in  truth,  be  applied  the  eloquent  tribute  paid  to  the  Jew: 
'Talk  of  pedigrees,  forsooth !  — tell  us  of  the  Talbots,  Per- 
cys, Howards,  and  such  like  mushrooms  of  yesterday !  —show 
us  a  presbyterian,  and  we  will  show  you  a  man  whose  spirit- 
ual genealogical  tree  springs  from  Abraham's  bosom  —  whose 

1)  See  my  Lect.  on  the   Apost.  3)  See  Dr.  Mason's  Wks.  vol.  iv. 
Succ  p  50S  Essays  on  the  Church  of  God. 

2)  Memoirs  of  the  Prot.  Ep.  Ch.  4)  See  Lect.  on  the  Headship  of 
pp.  78,  91.  Christ,  p.  29. 


CHAP.  III.]     THE    PRESBYTERIAN    CHURCH    THE    OLDEST.  529 

christian  doctrine  and  the  order  of  his  church  are  older  than 
the  decalogue,  and  who  bears  incontrovertible  evidence  of 
the  authenticity  of  his  descent,  through  myriads  of  succes- 
sive generations.' l 

Let  us  now  pass  from  the  church,  as  it  existed  in  these  ear- 
lier developments,  to  the  church  of  Christ,  in  its  pure,  primi- 
tive, virgin,  and  apostolic  form,  when  as  yet  unpolluted  by  a 
single  stain  of  human  corruption,  and  unincumbered  by  one 
device  of  weak  and  erring  men.  Let  us  walk  about  Zion,  as 
she  sits,  a  city  set  on  a  hill,  built  upon  the  rock  of  ages  ;  her  foun- 
dation apostles  and  prophets,  Jesus  Christ  himself  being  her 
chief  corner-stone  ;  fair  as  the  sun,  clear  as  the  moon,  and  terri- 
ble as  an  army  with  banners ;  her  God  in  the  midst  of  her  ; 
His  Spirit  dwelling  in  her;  her  sons  and  daughters  filled  with 
the  unction  of  the  Holy  One;  the  joy  of  her  friends,  and  the 
terror  and  admiration  of  her  foes.  Let  us  seek  the  sure  marks 
of  this  bride,  the  Lamb's  wife,  in  all  the  freshness  and  beauty 
of  her  maiden  simplicity  ;  and  we  find  her  clad  in  those  very 
garments,  and  holding  forth  those  very  doctrines,  which  are 
now  known  by  the  general  denomination  of  presbyterianism. 

And  since  there  can  be  nothing  before  what  is  first,  or 
purer  than  what,  is  purity  itself ;  or  more  ancient  than  anti- 
quity; or  more  apostolic  than  apostolicity ;  or  more  sa- 
cred than  the  very  teachings  of  divinity  ;  therefore  must  we 
conclude,  that  of  all  forms  of  Christianity,  in  doctrine  and  in 
polity,  that  which  is  known  by  this  general  and  comprehen- 
sive title  is  the  most  ancient  and  the  best  of  all.  Let  others 
quarrel,  whether  their  dogmas  took  rise  in  this  century  or 
that;  or  were  sustained  by  this  council  or  another;  or  may  be 
traced  in  this  antiquated  relic,  or  in  some  other  traditionary 
lore ;  we,  ancienter  than  all  councils,  and  older  than  all 
fathers,  can  calmly  witness  the  eagerness  with  which  they 
pursue  their  antiquarian  researches,  safe  housed  in  that  tem- 
ple not  made  with  hands,  whose  builder  and  maker  is  God. 

Jerusalem,  the  mother  of  all  churches,  the  first-born  of 
Christ,  and  the  fountain  of  all  succession,  was  a  presby- 
terian  church.  Antioch,  the  mother  of  all  the  Gentile  church- 
es, and  constructed  by  the  united  agency  of  ihe  apostles, 
Peter  and  Paul,  was,  we  have  seen,  also  presbyterian.  The 
whole  multitude  of  churches,  founded  by  apostolic  men; 
all  the  churches  in  the  post-apostolic  age;  all  the  churches  in 
the  primitive  era  of  Christianity  ;  the  churches  of  Alexandria, 
of  Gaul,  of  Scythia,  of  the   Goths,  of  the   Ulyrians,  of  the 

1)  Blackwood's  Magazine. 

67 


530  THE    PRESBYTERIAN    CHURCH    OLDER  [BOOK  III. 

Britons,  of  the  Irish,  and  of  the  Scots ;  the  churches  of  the 
Aerians,  the  Paulicians,  the  Waldenses,  the  Bohemians,  the 
Moravians,  the  Biscayans,  the  Syrians  ;  all  —  all  are  found 
to  have  held  fast  to  that  presbyterian  faith  once  delivered  to 
the  saints. 

Our  ark  of  hope !  though  wild  the  waves 

Of  Sin  and  Error  round  thee  roll, 
And  o'er  thy  path  the  tempest  raves, 

To  turn  thee  from  thy  destined  goal;  — 
'Tis  cheering,  through  the  gloom,  to  see 

Thy  gospel  banner  wide  unfurled, 
Above  the  storm  wave  fearlessly, 

The  refuge  of  a  ruined  world. 

Borne  on  the  fleeting  stream  of  Time, 

Through  buried  ages  thou  hast  past, 
And  in  thy  onward  course  sublime, 

Attained  our  distant  day  at  last; 
No  trace  of  Eld's  corroding  tooth 

Upon  thy  glorious  form  appears, 
But  radiant  with  immortal  youth, 

It  floats  amid  the  wreck  of  years. 

Nations  now  see  thy  cheering  light, 

And  own  its  kindling  power  divine, 
Who  long  in  Error's  dreary  night, 

Have  knelt  at  some  unholy  shrine; 
Led  by  thy  mild  and  steady  ray, 

In  thronging  multitudes  they  come, 
Thy  fair  proportions  to  survey, 

And  find  in  thee  a  peaceful  home. 

Secure  within  thy  hallowed  walls, 

O'er  life's  tempestuous  sea  we  glide, 
Nor  heed  the  storm  which  idly  falls 

In  angry  surges  on  thy  side ; 
For  He,  who  saved  the  timid  band 

Once  rudely  tossed  on  Galilee, 
Will  still  extend  his  mighty  hand 

And  spread  his  guardian  care  o'er  thee. 

§  3.  The  presbyterian  church  the  oldest  of  all  the  western  re- 
formed churches,  including  the  Romish  ;  with  an  answer  to 
the  objection,  '  Where  was  the  presbyterian  church  before 
Luther  ? ' 

As  a  church,  in  an  organized  form,  holding  to  the  doctrines, 
discipline,  and  government  of  Christ,  the  presbyterian  church 
has  existed,  therefore,  to  say  the  least,  as  long"  as  any  other 
extant  denomination  of  christians.  Do  we  go  back  to  the 
earliest  period  of  the  reformation,  we  find  the  leaders  of  that 
glorious  epoch  in  the  history  of  the  church,  with  almost  entire 
unanimity,  concurring  in  the  adoption  and  establishment  of 
presbyterian   principles,   a  fact   inexplicable   on   any    other 


CHAP.  III.]   THAN  ANY  OF  THE  REFORMED  CHURCHES.    531 

ground,  than  that  of  the  clear  and  undeniable  development  of 
Them  in  God's  holy  word.  The  reformed  churches  in  France, 
Germany,  Holland,  Hungary,  Geneva,  and  Scotland,  were 
all  based  upon  a  presbyterian  platform.  The  English  church 
alone,  of  all  protestant  Christendom,  was  fashioned  alter  the 
prelatic  model,  not  by  her  ministers,  but  by  her  civil  and  su- 
preme head.  The  presbyterian  form  of  church  government 
was  found  in  actual  operation  in  Switzerland,  as  even 
the  episcopal  historian,  Miner,  testifies,  as  early  as  the 
year  1528.  The  confession  used  in  the  English  church  m 
Geneva  was  received  and  approved  by  the  church  ofSoot- 
land  at  the  very  beginning  of  the  reformation.1  V\  hat  is 
usually  denominated  the  Scottish  Confession  of  Faith  and 
Doctrine,  was  authorized,  as  a  doclrine  grounded  upon  the 
infallible  word  of  God,  August,  1560.  The  First  Book  oj 
Discipline  was  drawn  up  by  John  Knox,  and  subscribed  and 
approved  in  January,  1561.  This  work  the  church  travailed 
to  perfect  and  complete,  between  the  years  1564  and  lobl ; 
and  it  speaks  forth,  in  its  most  excogitated  form,  the  sentiments 
of  the  early  reformers  in   Scotland,  as   with  a   unanimous 


voice. 


The  first  presbytery  in  England  was  organized  at  Wands- 
worth, in  1572.  It  was  composed  of  Mr.  Field,  lecturer  ol 
Wandsworth,  Mr.  Smith,  of  Mitcham,  Mr.  Crane,  of  Roe- 
hampton,  Messrs.  Wilcox,  Standen,  Jackson,  Bonham,  Saint- 
loe,  and  Edmonds,  to  whom  were  afterwards  joined  Messrs. 
Travers,  Chake,  Barber,  Gardiner,  Crook,  Egerton,  and  a 
number  of  distinguished  laymen.  On  the  twentieth  oi  No- 
vember, eleven  elders  were  chosen,  and  their  offices  described, 
in  a  register  entitled  'the  orders  of  Wandsworth,'  (Neal,  l. 
198.)  '  This,'  says  Neal,  <  was  the  first  presbyterian  church  in 
England.'  The  probability  is,  that  a  presbytery  was  organ- 
ized, and  also  a  church  constituted,  at  the  same  time.  1  here 
certainly  were  Dutch  churches  which  adopted  the  presbyte- 
rian government  long  before  this.  Fuller  mentions  fifteen 
ministers  who  belonged  to  this  first  presbytery,  as  Neal  has 
done  in  the  passage  quoted  above.  It  is  very  improbable, 
that  fifteen  ministers  and  eleven  elders  belonged  to  one 
church,  which  was  compelled  to  hold  its  meetings  secretly ; 
the  only  correct  conclusion  is,  that  it  was  a  presbytery,  and 
not  a  single  church.  This  conclusion  is  warranted  by  the 
fact,  that,  on  the  eighth  of  May,  1582,  there  was  a  synod  oi 
threescore  ministers. 

1)  See  in  Irving's  Conf.  p.  125. 


532  THE    PRESBYTERIAN    CHURCH    OLDER  [BOOK  III. 

The  ecclesiastical  discipline  observed  and  practiced  in  the 
churches  of  Jersey  and  Guernsey,  after  the  reformation  of 
the  same,  by  the  ministers,  elders,  and  deacons  of  the  isles  of 
Guernsey,  Jersey,  Sark,  and  Aldernay,  was  confirmed  by  the 
authority  and  in  the  presence  of  the  governors  of  said  isles,  in  a 
synod,  held  in  Guernsey,  in  1576  ;  and  was  afterwards  received 
by  the  said  ministers  and  elders,  and  confirmed  by  the  said 
governors,  in  a  synod  held  in  Jersey,  October,  1577.  (Heylin, 
fol.  edit.  Lond.  p.  239.)  These  churches  were  composed 
chiefly  of  Huguenots,  who  fled  from  France  on  account  of 
the  massacre  on   St.  Bartholomew's  day,  August  24th,  1572. 

In  the  year  1647,  the  Westminster  Confession, — which 
is  so  termed  because  drawn  up  by  the  assembly  of  divines 
called  by  the  long  parliament  in  the  reign  of  Charles  I,  and 
which  continued  its  deliberations  for  five  years,  —  was  adopted 
by  the  church  of  Scotland,  as  a  platform  of  communion  with  the 
church  in  England.  This  standard,  embracing  the  cate- 
chisms, form  of  government,  and  directory  for  worship,  con- 
tinues to  be  held  as  the  confession  of  the  faith  and  practice  of 
our  churches,  until  this  day;  although,  as  received  by  the 
presbyterian  church  in  America,  it  has  been  modified  so 
as  to  be  fully  adapted  to  the  genius  of  our  free  and  republi- 
can institutions. 

Now  when  we  turn  to  the  church  of  England,  as  a  re- 
formed church,  we  find  that  the  thirty-nine  articles,  which 
contain  her  doctrinal  confession,  were  first  passed  in  the 
convocation,  and  confirmed  by  royal  authority  in  1562. 
They  were  afterwards  ratified  anew  in  1571,  and  again  in 
the  reign  of  Charles  I.  The  liturgy  was  first  composed  in 
1547,  and  was  finally  amended  in  1661. 

If,  again,  we  consider  the  claims  of  the  Romish  church, 
in  its  reformed  or  rather,  as  we  think,  in  its  deformed 
character,  we  find  that  it  can  date  no  further  back  than  the 
period  of  the  Tridentine  council,  which  was  closed  in  the  year 
1563,  under  the  pontificate  of  Pius  IV.  The  professed  object 
of  this  famous  council  was,  to  reform  ecclesiastical  abuses, 
and  definitively  settle  the  faith  of  that  sect.  The  bull  of  con- 
firmation of  this  council  was  signed  on  January  26,  1564. 
On  the  9th  of  December,  1563,  pope  Pius  IV,  drew  up  and 
recorded  in  the  apostolic  chancery  his  bull,  which  contains 
and  sets  forth  'the  present,  true,  real,  and  ONLY  DIS- 
TINCTIVE PUBLIC  AND  AUTHORIZED  CREED 
of  the  holy  catholic  and  apostolic  church,  the  mother  and 
mistress  of  churches.'  This  creed  is  based  upon  the  canons 
and  decrees  of  the  council  of  Trent.     By  this  creed,  which 


CHAP.  III.]  THAN    THE    ROMISH    CHURCH.  533 

every  Roman  catholic  bishop,  priest,  and  convert  is  obliged  to 
profess,  there  is  an  express  acknowledgment  made  of  the 
oecumenical  character  of  the  synod  of  Trent,  and  a  profession 
of  obedience  to  its  decrees.1  The  Romish  missal,  the  Romish 
prayer-book,  was  drawn  up  by  certain  fathers,  chosen  for  that 
purpose,  towards  the  close  of  the  council  of  Trent,  in  1502. 
It  was  not  sanctioned  and  promulgated  until  1570,  by  a  bull  of 
pope  Pius  V,  bearing  date  the  12th  of  January  in  that  year.2 
This,  then,  is  the  present  and  only  authorized  and  distinc- 
tive creed,  by  which  the  Romish  church  is  distinguished  from 
all  others,  as  an  ecclesiastical  organization.  Besides  this, 
that  church,  as  Roman,  never  had  any  other  authorized  and 
established  creed.  Although,  for  centuries  previous,  she 
had  held  forth  practically  many  of  her  present  false  and  dan- 
gerous tenets,  yet  it  was  only  as  opinions,  and  not  as  defined 
and  determinate  articles  of  the  faith,  of  which  a  distinct 
acknowledgment  was  required,  as  necessary  to  salvation. 
'Previously  to  the  reformation,' says  Mr.  Palmer,  'we  do  not 
observe  any  clear  and  undoubted  decisions  of  the  western 
synods,  which  compelled  the  Latin  churches  1o  receive  doc- 
trines at  variance  with  those  taught  by  our  catholic  and  apos- 
tolic churches.'3  The  synod  of  Trent  defined  and  made  nec- 
essary these  several  articles  of  faith,  and  pope  Pius  IV,  em- 
bodied the  whole  in  his  creed,  which  is  now  the  constitutional 
confession  of  the  Romish  church.  It  will  be  of  no  avail  to 
reply,  that  the  Romish  church  ever  held  and  maintained  the 
several  creeds  known  as  ihe  Apostles',  the  Nicene,  the  Atha- 
nasian,  or  the  creeds  adopted  by  the  councils  of  Nice,  Chalce- 
don,  Constantinople,  and  Ephesus  ;  for  these  she  held  not  as 
Roman,  but  as  christian  ;  not  as  peculiar  to  her,  but  in  com- 

l)'And  all  other  things,  like-  taught,  and  preached  to  the  uttermost 
wise,  do  I  undoubtedly  receive  and  of  my  power;  I,  the  said  N,  promise, 
confess,  which  are  delivered,  defined,  vow,  and  swear,  so  God  help  me,  and 
and  declared  by  the  sacred  canons  and  his  holy  gospels.  It  shall  not  be  law- 
general  councils,  and  especially  the  ful,  therefore,  for  any  man  to  infringe 
holy  council  of  Trent;  and  withal,  I  this  our  will  and  commandment,  or 
condemn,  reject,  and  accurse,  all  by  audacious  boldness  to  conlnulict 
things  that  are  contrary  hereunto,  and  the  same.  Which,  if  any  man  shall 
all  heresies  whatsoever  condemned,  presume  to  attempt,  let  him  know 
rejected,  and  accursed  by  the  church  ;  that  he  shall  incur  the  indignation 
and  I  will  be  careful,  that  this  true  of  Almighty  God,  and  of  Saint  Peter 
catholic  faith,  (out  of  which  no  man  and  Saint  Paul,  his  blessed  apostles.' 
can  be  saved,  which  at  this  time  I  2)  Odenheimer's  Orig.  of  the 
willingly  profess  and  truly  hold,)  be  Prayer  Book,  p.  91. 
constantly,  (with  God's  help.)  retained  3)  Palmer  on  the  Ch.  vol.  ii.  p. 
and  confessed,  whole  and  inviolate,  to  237.  See  also  a  very  able  argument 
the  last  gasp  ;  and  by  those  that  are  on  this  subject,  by  Dr.  R.  J.  Breckin- 
under  me,  or  such  as  I  shall  have  ridge,  in  his  Magazine  for  Nov.  1839. 
charge  over   in   my   calling,  holden, 


534  THE    PRESBYTERIAN    CHURCH    OLDER  [BOOK  III. 

mon  with  all  other  orthodox  churches  ;  and  because  to  these, 
doctrinally  considered,  the  other  reformed  churches,  as  well 
as  the  Romish,  also  hold,  and  only  differ  from  her  in  pro- 
testing, as  did  many  in  every  age  of  the  church,  against  doc- 
trines and  practices  contrary  to  these,  and  subversive  of  the 
true  faith  and  order  of  the  gospel.  Now,  so  long  as  these 
things  were  not  defined  as  articles  of  faith,  and  not  enforced, 
as  of  necessity  to  be  believed,  they,  by  whom  they  were  re- 
jected, were  satisfied  with  rejecting  or  protesting  against 
them ;  but  when,  by  this  new  established  creed,  they  were 
enforced  and  made  necessary,  all  who  could  not  in  conscience 
submit,  were  obliged  utterly  to  separate  from  any  responsible 
connection  with  an  apostate  church.  The  papal  bull  was 
Rome's  bill  of  divorce,  addressed  to  the  pure  church  of  Jesus 
Christ,  and  the  church  accepted  it,  that  she  might  thenceforth 
hold  only  from  her  head,  who  is  in  heaven.1 

The  church  of  Rome,  thererefore,  is  younger  than  most  of 
the  churches  of  the  reformation.  Her  creed  is  more  novel 
than  that  of  the  Lutherans,  which  was  presented  at  the  diet  of 
Augsburgh,  in  1530;  of  Geneva,  which  was  even  earlier;  of 
the  four  cities,  dated  1530 ;  of  Basle,  published  in  1532 ;  of 
the  Bohemian  confession,  compiled  from  the  ancient  confes- 
sions of  the  Waldenses,  and  exhibited  in  1532;  of  the  Hel- 
vetic, drawn  up  in  1536  ;  of  the  Saxon,  prepared  in  the  year 
1551 ;  of  the  French  confession,  drawn  up  by  Calvin,  and 
adopted  in  the  synod  of  Paris  in  the  year  1559  ;  of  the  Bel- 
gic,  prepared  and  published  in  1561  ;  of  the  Scottish,  exhib- 
ited and  authorized  in  1560 ;  of  the  English,  which  was 
completed  in  1562,  under  Elizabeth,  by  the  publication  by 
the  convocation  of  the  thirty-nine  articles,  Jewell's  Apology, 
and  No  well's  Catechism. 

Thus  baseless  are  the  pretensions  to  antiquity,  and  thus 
vain  the  arrogant  assumption  of  supremacy,  which  are  most 
absurdly  asserted  by  the  Romish  church ;  the  latest  most 
novel,  and  most  corrupted  of  all  the  churches  of  the  reforma- 
tion, a  church  whose  creed  is  irreconcilably  opposed  to  the 
creeds  of  the  early  church,  whether  Roman,  Anglican,  or 
oriental,  and  contrary  to  those  now  embraced  by  all  Christen- 
dom beside. 

'  By  their  fruits  ye  shall  know  them.'  On  the  tree  of  popery 
we  find  growing,  in  all  that  fertility  which  is  peculiar  to 
error,  seven  sacraments,  seven  orders  of  ministers,  metropoli- 
tans, patriarchs,  and  a  pope.     But  where,  in  all  the  New  Test- 

1)  De  Aubigne,  vol.  ii.  p.  124. 


CHAP.  III. 


than  Tim  romtsii.  535 


anient,  is  there  any  colorable  pretext  for  fathering  upon  it  such 
an  offspring  as  this?  '  If,'  says  Jewell,1  'to  have  wandered 
from  the  word  of  God,  the  commands  of  Christ,  the  institu- 
tions of  the  apostles,  the  examples  of  the  primitive  church, 
the  canons  and  decrees  of  the  ancient  fathers  and  councils  ; 
nay,  even  from  its  own  positive  enactments;  if  to  be  bound 
by  no  laws,  ancient  or  modern,  domestic  or  foreign,  human 
or  divine ;  if  in  this  consists  errors,  thenis  the  church  of  Rome 
not  infallible  ;  then  has  she  been  guilty  of  the  most  flagrant 
crime,  the  most  shameful  conduct.' 

It  is  most  insultingly  affirmed,  that  '  the  presbyterian  scheme 
was  invented  in  the  sixteenth  century,'2  and  we  are  asked  where 
in  all  the  world  it  existed  prior  to  that  time  ?  Now  of  this 
query,  we  would  say,  it  smells  strong  of  the  old  and  long 
buried  challenge  of  Rome,  'where  was  your  church  before 
Luther?'  Our  answer,  therefore,  may  be  the  same  as  that 
given  to  this  preposterous  question  —  'it  was  where  prelacy 
never  was,  and  never  will  be  found,  —  in  the  Bible.'  And  if 
there,  then  the  question  has  but  little  remaining  interest  as  a 
guide  to  any  authoritative  decision,  since  we  are  abundantly 
satisfied  with  the  foundation  of  apostles  and  prophets,  and 
arc  quite  willing  to  act  under  Christ's  commission,  and  with 
apostolic  benediction,  however  we  may  be  denied  the  sanc- 
tion of  Romish,  or  of  Anglican  prelates. 

Where  was  presbytery  before  the  reformation?  It  was 
in  the  Bible.  It  was,  as  we  have  seen,  in  the  understand- 
ing and  the  hearts  of  some  of  the  wisest  of  the  school- 
men; of  some  of  the  best  and  most  learned  of  the 
fathers;  and  of  all  the  primitive  fathers;  it  was  found, 
in  later  times,  in  Germany,  with  Huss,  of  Prague ;  in  Eng- 
land, with  WickliiTe,  and  the  Lollards;  in  Europe,  with 
the  Albigenses,  and  the  Waldenses ;  and  in  India,  with 
the  Syrian  churches.  In  remoter  times,  we  find  it  in  the 
same  communities,  and  with  other  individuals.  And  in 
the  truli/  primitive  and  early  ages  of  the  church,  we  find  it 
at  Alexandria ;  in  Scotland,  and  in  Ireland;  while  there  is 
nothing  to  disprove  the  fact  that  it  was  then,  in  truth,  the 
quod  semper,  quod  ubique,  quod  ab  omnibus.  That  we  have 
in  the  reformation  freed  the  church  from  the  novelties  of 
popery,  and  the  more  inveterate  disease  of  prelacy,  cannot 
surely  extinguish  the  life  of  the  true  primitive  and  apostolic 
church.  Till  the  reformation,  the  church,  in  great  part, 
professed  the  true  rule  of  faith,  and  held  to  the  true  and  real 

1)   Apol.  p.  180.  2)  Perceval,   on  Apostolic    Succ. 

p.  61,  and  others. 


536  THE    QUESTION,  WHERE    WAS    PRESBYTERY        [BOOK  III. 

ministry  —  but  in  addition  to  this,  it  clung  also  to  the  corrup- 
tions of  popery,  and  the  super-additions  of  prelacy.  Now 
these  corruptions  and  additions  we  have  removed,  as  obscur- 
ing the  glory  of  the  sanctuary,  and  binding,  as  with  a  dead- 
ening ligament,  the  body  of  the  church.  We  have,  at  great 
cost,  cleared  away  the  rubbish  which  had  been  heaped  around 
the  temple.  We  have  cleansed  it  within  and  without  from 
the  polluting  marks  of  human  innovation,  and  it  now  stands 
forth  in  all  the  glory  and  the  beauty  of  its  original  propor- 
tions. '  There  is  not  one  stone  of  a  new  foundation  laid  by 
us ;  yea  the  old  walls  stand  still,  only  the  overcasting  of  those 
ancient  stones  with  the  untempered  mortar  of  new  inven- 
tions displeaseth  us;'  for  'what  are  these  corruptions  but 
unsound  adjections  to  the  ancient  structure  of  religion.'1 
The  only  alterations  we  have  made,  pertain  not  to  what  was 
useful  or  necessary  to  the  church,  but  only  to  what  was  inju- 
rious. Do  we  not  still  adhere  to  the  only  infallible  rule  of 
faith  and  practice  ?  Do  we  not  still  receive  and  profess  those 
creeds,  beyond  which  there  can  be  nothing  fundamental  or 
necessary?  Do  we  not  observe  every  ordinance  and  institute 
made  binding  on  us  by  divine  authority?  Do  we  not  still 
adhere  to  that  form  of  government  by  bishops,  elders,  (or 
presbyters,)  and  deacons,  which  was  ordained  by  apostolic 
wisdom  ?  Have  we  not  a  confession  and  catechisms  which 
are  preeminently  scriptural,  beautiful,  and  instructive  ;  which 
occupied  the  prayerful  and  learned  labors  of  hundreds  of  the 
most  pious  and  able  men  of  all  parties  in  England  and  Scot- 
land, for  the  space  of  many  years ;  which  were  adopted  by  a 
British  parliament;  which  were  independently  examined,  and 
unanimously  embraced,  by  the  Scottish  church ;  which  have 
been  generally  approved  by  the  body  of  congregationalists ; 
and  which  have  constituted  a  bulwark  of  orthodoxy,  before 
which  the  enemies  of  the  truth  have  ever  quailed? 

Where  was  presbyterianism  before  the  reformation? 
Abolish  those  popish  ceremonies,  those  man-determined  doc- 
trines, those  traditionary  dogmas,  the  legends  of  erring  and 
deluded  men,  those  unauthorized  orders  and  forms ;  remove 
those  changes  and  innovations  from  the  Romish  and  the  Angli- 
can church,  and  you  will  have  the  primitive  form  of  Roman 
and  Anglican  Christianity,  which  you  will  find  to  be  presby- 
terianism. '  To  be  safe  from  Rome  we  must  have  doctrines 
older  than  Rome ;  and  such  we  profess  to  have.  And  we 
refuse  to  have  our  inheritance  taken  away  from  us,  because  an 

1 )  Bp.  Hall's  Old  Rel.  ch.  vii. 


CHAP.  III.]  BEFORE    LUTHER    ANSWERED.  537 

unfaithful  church  has  brought  wild  beasts  into  it,  and  left 
wreck  and  devastation  all  over  its  happy  plains.'  ' 

'As  when  a  hillock  of  defiling  earth, 
Let  slip  from  an  o'erhanging  eminence, 
Into  the  bosom  of  a  clear  blue  flood, 
Comes  falling,  the  pent  current  on  each  side 
Labors  for  outlet,  and  overflowing  rills 
Are  lost,  in  fen  and  reed  untraceable. 
But  far  above,  gathering  its  own  deep  strength, 
Between  the  rocks  an  undefiled  stream 
Forth  issues,  rolling  clear  its  watery  bank; 
While  the  broad  bed  of  the  descending  flood, 
With  dark  discolorings  and  miry  weeds, 
Bears  on  its  forward  passage  to  the  sea. 
Thus  when  the  infatuate  council,  named  of  Trent, 
Clogged  up  the  catholic  course  of  the  true  faith, 
Troubling  the  stream  of  pure  antiquity, 
And  the  wide  channel  in  its  bosom  took 
Crude  novelties,  scarce  known  as  that  of  old  ; 
Our  church,  though  straitened  sore  'tween  craggy  walls, 
Kept  her  true  course,  unchanging,  and  the  same; 
Known  by  that  ancient  clearness,  pure  and  free, 
With  which  she  sprung  from  'neath  the  throne  of  God.' 

But  it  is  said  we  have  reformed  the  church  of  Christ, 
which  cannot  admit  of  reformation,  and  that,  therefore,  we 
cannot  trace  our  church  beyond  Luther's  time.  But  this 
objection  lies  only  against  the  reformed  Tridentine  church  of 
Rome,  since  we  pretend  to  be  a  reformation  not  of  the 
church  of  Christ,  but  of  the  church  of  Rome,  which  may  go 
astray,  and  has  infallibly  gone  astray,  in  innumerable  instan- 
ces. There  is  no  church  called  the  protestant  church. 
'  There  are  different  branches  of  the  church  of  Christ,  pro- 
testing against  the  errors  of  the  church  of  Rome,  such  as  the 
Lutheran  church,  the  presbyterian  church,  and  the  episcopal 
church.  The  universal  church  of  Christ  is  one,  holy,  catho- 
lic, and  apostolical ;  but  the  before-mentioned  branches  of 
this  church  do  not  pretend  to  be  the  whole  church  of  Christ. 
Yet  they  are  one  with  the  universal  church,  as  the  disciples 
of  Christ,  are  one  with  Christ ;  they  are  holy,  as  being  parts 
of  that  which  is  holy;  they  are  catholic,  as  being  parts 
of  the  church  universal ;  and  they  are  apostolical,  because  they 
are  founded  on  the  doctrines  and  discipline  of  the  apostles.' 

From  the  brief  review  now  taken  of  the  facts  in  the  case,  it 
very  plainly  appears,  that  among  all  the  reformed  churches,  the 
Romish  included,  the  presbyterian  leads  on  the  van   as  the 

1)  The  English  church  had  con-  2)  Bishop    Burgess's   Tracts,  p. 

fessedly  lost  sight  of  her  original  prin-     1P5. 
ciples.  Woodgate's  Bampton  Lectures, 
p.  11. 

68 


538  THE    PRESBYTERIAN    CHURCH.  [BOOK  III. 

oldest  of  them  all ;  the  first-born  of  this  family  of  the  reforma- 
tion ;  the  glorious  leader  of  the  host.  It  is  as  plain,  that 
among  all  the  existing  constitutions  of  all  these  churches,  by 
which  severally  they  are  now  bound,  and  according  to  which 
they  regulate  their  practice,  the  standards  of  the  presbyterian 
churches  take  precedence,  in  point  of  date,  to  those  of  the 
Romish  or  the  Anglican  church,  and  that,  of  them  all,  the 
Romish  is  the  most  novel.  The  faith,  the  order,  the  consti- 
tution —  which  go  to  make  up  the  substance  of  presbyteri- 
anism,  are  therefore  undeniably  the  most  ancient.  They 
are  the  first-fruits  of  that  seed  which  had  in  every  previous 
period  been  sown  in  the  ungracious  soil,  and  during  most 
unpropitious  seasons  ;  which  had  ever  and  again  burst  forth 
in  some  vigorous  shoot,  only  to  be  blasted  by  the  keen  edge 
of  wintry  and  bitter  persecution ;  but  which,  now,  by  the 
favoring  providence  of  God,  are  brought  forth  to  a  rich  and 
plentiful  harvest. 

§  4.  The  presbyterian  church  is  the  oldest  in  the  United 
States,  and  in  South  Carolina,  as  compared  with  the  Romish 
and  episcopal  churches. 

It  will  appear  equally  plain,  that,  among  all  the  different 
organized  churches  in  these  United  States,  and  in  the  state 
of  South  Carolina,  the  presbyterian  is  the  most  ancient. 
Wherever  there  are  presbyterians  enough  to  constitute  a  pres- 
bytery, there  the  church  is  fully  organized  and  established, 
since  we  regard  synods  and  assemblies  not  as  essential  to  the 
system,  but  only  as  its  development.  They  form  the  exten- 
sion of  the  presbytery,  so  as  to  secure  for  the  whole  body  all 
the  benefits  of  unity,  order,  efficiency,  and  justice.  On  the 
other  hand,  a  popish  or  prelatic  organized  body  cannot  exist 
until  there  is  an  episcopal  order  to  constitute  the  centre  of  its 
unity,  the  bond  of  attraction,  and  the  source  of  legitimate 
authority  and  power.  So  says  archbishop  Seeker,  in  his  let- 
ter to  Mr.  Walpole,  on  this  very  subject  of  the  American 
episcopate,  where  he  urges  this,  among  other  reasons,  on 
its  behalf.  '  It  belongs  to  the  very  nature  of  episcopal 
churches,  to  have  bishops,  at  proper  distances,  presiding  over 
them.'1  The  establishment  of  bishops  and  their  jurisdiction 
is,  therefore,  as  essential  to  the  constitution  of  episcopal 
churches,  as  is  that  of  the  presbytery  to  presbyterian  churches. 

1)  Letter  concerning  Bishops   in     Mr.    Blackburne,  p.  9,  and    Seeker's 
Amer.  p.  3.  See  Crit.  Com.  on,  by  Rev.     Wks. 


CHAP.  III.]       THE    OLDEST    IN    THE    UNITF.D    STATES.  539 

Dr.  Chandler,  also,  in  his  Appeal  on  behalf  of  the  Church 
of  England  in  America,  urges  as  a  reason,  why  bishops 
should  be  allowed,1  that  'if,  according  to  the  doctrine  and 
belief  of  the  Church  of  England,  none  have  a  right  to  govern 
the  church  but  bishops,  nor  to  ordain,  nor  to  confirm ;  then 
the  American  church,  while  without  bishops,  must  be  without 
government,  without  ordination  and  confirmation.'  '  But  it 
must  be  also  granted,  that,  for  such  a  number  of  presbyters 
to  be  left  without  a  bishop  at  their  head,  to  superintend  and 
govern  them,  is  a  thing  equally  unknown  to  the  constitution 
of  any  episcopal  church  upon  earth.'  "When,  then,  we  ask, 
were  the  Romanists  first  supplied,  by  the  pope,  with  the 
essential  element  of  a  Romish  church  —  a  valid  episcopate? 
The  first  Romish  bishop  consecrated  in  America  was  Car- 
roll, of  Baltimore,  in  1790.  But  he  was  ordained  by  only 
one  bishop,  which  is  invalid,  according  to  canonical  law ;  so 
that  all  the  orders  flowing  from  him  are  canonically  invalid, 
and  the.  Romish  church  in  this  country  self-excommunicated 
from  the  true  church.2  But  passing  all  this,  the  earliest  date 
which  can  be  assigned  to  the  Romish  church,  as  an  organized 
body  in  this  country,  is  1790. 

If  we  again  inquire,  at  what  period  the  present  constitution 
of  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church  in  this  country  was  estab- 
lished, we  find  that  it  was  in  the  year  1789,  up  to  which  time, 
as  Dr.  Hawks  informs  us,  '  there  was  no  bond  holding  the 
churches  on  this  continent  together,  but  the  bond  of  a  com- 
mon faith.'3  Up  to  the  period  of  August,  1789,  the  protestant 
episcopal  church  was  not  organized  in  the  United  States,  but 
existed  only  as  so  many  independent  churches.4  In  sending 
delegates  to  the  general  meeting  in  1785,  the  clergy  of  South 
Carolina  gave  unequivocal  proof  of  their  independence,  by 
annexing  an  understanding,  that  no  bishop  was  to  be  settled 
in  that  state.5  From  the  time  of  the  dissolution  of  all  con- 
nection with  the  English  church,  by  the  revolution,  the  episco- 
pal church  in  this  country  was  'without  even  a  regular  gov- 
ernment,'6 and  had  'as  yet  no  resource  within  itself,  for  a 
succession  of  ministers.'7     Thus  left  to  themselves,  '  the  epis- 

1)  Pp.  27,  28.  Prot.  Episc.  Church  of  Virginia.  Con- 

2)  See  New  York  Rev.  Jan.  1842,     vention  of  1785. 

p.  126.  5)  Dr.  Hawk's  and  Dalcho's  Hist. 

3)  See  also  bishop  White's  Me-  p.  469.    The  first  bishop  in  South  Car- 
moirs  of  Prot.  Episc.  Ch.  olina  was  bishop   Smith,  consecrated 

4)  Thus  every  minister  in  Virgin-  in  1795  ;  ibid,  p.  428. 

ia  was  required  by  their  10th  Canon,  6)  Journals  of  Convent,  of  Virg. 

to  conform  to  the  doctrine,  &c,  of  the     in  Hawk's  Eccl.  Hist.  App.  p.  7. 

7)   Ibid,  and  p.  28. 


540  THE    PRESBYTERIAN    CHURCH    THE  [BOOK  III. 

copal  clergy  began  to  look  about  how  to  get  this  fund.a- 
mental  defect,  (their  destitution  of  bishops,)  removed,  and 
their  orphan  church  duly  organized.' l  '  She  had  no  bishops  — 
no  visible  form  of  church  government,'-  and  '  no  centre  of  unity 
remained.'3  'This  was  the  melancholy  condition  of  the 
church,'  says  the  British  Critic,  '  in  1783,  and  from  that  date 
to  the  close  of  the  century,  it  was  fully  employed  in  organizing 
itself  upon  the  apostolical  model.  It  obtained  bishops  from 
Scotland  and  England,  in  1787,  and  in  the  course  of  the  thir- 
teen years  which  followed.'4 

It  thus  appears,  that  while,  through  the  Rev.  Professor 
"VVhittingham,now  bishop  of  Maryland,  the  Episcopal  Church 
in  this  country  can  speak  of '  other  denominations,  with  one  ex- 
ception, (that  is,  the  Romish,)  as  'all  of  mushroom  growth,  not 
even  coeval  with  the  discovery  of  our  continent,  but  as  yester- 
day, children  of  change  .  .  .  .  novelty  is  their  origin  and  bane'5 
—  that  this  very  church,  in  its  organized  form,  dates  back  no 
further  than  the  year  1789 ! !  and  received  this  boasted  suc- 
cession, by  which  she  first  became  a  living  church,  in  the  year 
1787!!! 

And  yet,  before  the  year  1640,  there  had  come  to  this  coun- 
try, from  Scotland  and  Ireland,  according  to  Mather,  four 
thousand  presbyterians.6  In  1684,  a  small  colony  of  persecut- 
ed Scotch,  under  Lord  Cardross,  settled  in  South  Carolina.7 
Within  three  years  before  1773,  sixteen  hundred  emigrants 
from  the  north  of  Ireland  settled  in  Carolina ;  and  scarcely  a 
ship  sailed  from  any  Irish  port  for  Charleston,  that  was  not 
crowded,  and  that  almost  entirely  by  presbyterians.8  To  the 
Scotch,  also,  says  Dr.  Ramsay,  this  state  is  indebted  for  a  great 
proportion  of  its  physicians,  clergymen,  lawyers,  and  school- 
masters. The  English  puritans  were,  many  of  them,  presby- 
terians. The  Dutch  were  also  presbyterians.  A  portion  of 
the  German  emigrants  were  of  the  same  denomination.  All 
the  French  protestants  were  as  staunch  Calvinists  and  pres- 
byterians, as  were  the  Scotch  and  the  Irish,9  their  constitution 

1)  Adams's  Relig.  World,  vol.  ii.  5)   See  his  sermon,   'Count   the 
p.  447,  from  Skinner,  Eccl.  Hist.              Cost,'  published  in  1836,  in  which  he 

2)  Brit.Crit.  Oct.1839,  pp.  282,286.     truly  speaks  of  'the  conspicuousness 

3)  Caswall's  Am.    Ch.  in  ibid,  p.  thus  given  to  his  church  by  her  own 
286.  pretensions  ! ! ! '     P.  27. 

4)  Brit.Crit.  Oct.1839,  p.  286.  Dr.  6)  See   Hodge's  Constit.  Hist,  of 
Wilson,  in   his   Memoirs    of    Bishop  the  Presb.  Ch.  vol.  i.  ch.  i. 

White,  speaks  also  of '  the  proceedings  7)  Ibid,  p.  67. 

for  reviving  and  organizing  anew  our  8)  Ibid. 

church,  formerly  known  by  the  name  9)  Hodge,  ibid,  p.  68. 

of  the  Church  of  England  in  America.' 

P.  95. 


CHAP.  III.]      OLDEST  IN  THE  UNITED  STATES    AND  S.  C.  541 

having  been  framed  by  the  immortal  Calvin.  The  American 
presbyterian  church,  therefore,  is  composed  of  Puritans,  Scotch, 
Irish,  Dutch,  German,  and  French  emigrants,  who  have  all 
become  built  up  into  one  spiritual  temple  in  the  Lord.  The 
number  of  presbyterian  emigrants,  who  came  to  this  country 
by  the  middle  of  the  last  century,  was  between  one  and  two 
hundred  thousand.  Those  from  Ireland  alone  were  not  less 
than  fifty  thousand. ]  And,  as  their  blood  has  now  flowed 
into  one  common  stream,  so  have  they  been  molten  down 
and  moulded  into  one  christian  mass.  In  the  year  1704,  a 
presbytery  consisting  of  seven  ministers  was  constituted,  call- 
ed the  presbytery  of  Philadelphia.  This  had  so  increased  as 
to  be  divided,  in  1716,  into  four  presbyteries,  and  thus  to  con- 
stitute the  synod  of  Philadelphia;  and  in  1788,  so  as  to  con- 
stitute four  synods,  which  organized  the  general  assembly  in 
1789. 

From  the  very  commencement  of  the  settlement  of  South 
Carolina,  there  were  a  sufficient  number  of  puritans  in  it  to 
keep  up  a  constant  warfare,  as  Dr.  Ramsay  says,  with  the  high- 
churchmen.2  In  16S5,  great  numbers  of  French  protestants, 
that  is,  presbyterians,  sought  an  asylum  here.3  The  congre- 
gationalists  and  presbyterians  had  a  church  in  Charleston  as 
early  as  1690.  The  presbyterians,  says  Ramsay,  were  among 
the  first  settlers,  and  were  always  numerous.4  Of  the  numer- 
ous emigrants,  in  the  last  fifty  years  of  the  eighteenth  century, 
a  great  majority  were  presbyterians.  They  were  fully  organ- 
ized into  a  presbytery  very  early  in  the  eighteenth  century.5 

While,  therefore,  on  our  principles,  there  were  fully  organ- 
ized presbyterian  churches  in  this  country,  and  in  this  state, 
from  the  earliest  period ;  on  the  principles  of  prelacy  there 
was  not  an  organized  episcopal  church  in  this  country,  having 
any  visible  form  or  centre  of  unity,  or  principle  of  vitality,  un- 
til the  year  1789.  The  patent  for  the  colony  of  South  Caro- 
lina was  granted  in  1663.  In  the  year  1701,  Dr.  Humphrey 
states,  that  with  a  white  population  of  seven  thousand  persons, 
'  natives  of  these  kingdoms,  (that  is,  Britain,)  there  was,  until 
the  year  1701,  no  minister  of  the  church  of  England  resident  in 
this  colony.'6  In  1710,  the  episcopalians  formed  less  than 
half  the  population,  counting  several  French  congregations.7 
On  the  other  hand,  as  we  have  seen,  there  was  a  regularly  organ- 

1)  Hodge,  ibid.  p.  70.  6)  Hist,  of  Soc.  for  Prop.  Rel.  p. 

2)  Hist,  of  S.  C.  vol.  ii.  p.  45.  25. 

3)  Ibid,  p.  38.  7)  Hodge's    Hist,    of  Presb.    Ch. 

4)  Ibid,  p.  24.  part  ii.  457. 

5)  Ramsay,  vol.  ii.  p.  26. 


542  NOVELTY  OF  THE  EPISCOPAL  CHURCH  IN  S.  C.    [BOOK  III. 

ized  church,  formed  by  the  union  of  presbyleriansand  indepen- 
dents in  Charleston,  as  early  as  the  year  1690.1  Nay,  it  ap- 
pears, that  the  present  episcopal  organization  in  this  state  can 
date  no  further  back  than  the  year  1804.  For,  in  his  sermon 
upon  the  late  Dr.  Bowen,  the  present  bishop  says;2  'ml804, 
the  diocese  ivas  reduced,  we  may  say,  to  its  original  elements. 
The  bishop  was  gone  to  his  rest,  no  convention  had  been 
held  for  five  years,  and  there  was  no  standing  committee  ex- 
isting or  acting.  The  Rev.  Mr.  Bowen,  the  youngest  minister 
in  it,  was  one  of  the  principal  leaders  in  the  measures  for  its 
reorganization.  A  convention  of  the  churches  was  held  in 
February,  1804  ;  rules  for  its  governance,  chiefly  prepared  by 
him,  were  adopted,  and  he  was  elected  secretary  of  the  con- 
vention, and  of  the  standing  committee.' 

In  what  sense,  then,  can  episcopalians  or  Romanists,  claim 
to  be  'the  legitimate  branch  of  the  holy  catholic  church,  in 
these  United  States,'3  since,  on  their  own  principles,  priority  of 
establishment  constitutes  the  claim  to  apostolic  jurisdiction, 
in  any  kingdom.  Verily  they  have  both  pronounced  upon 
themselves  a  sentence  of  illegitimacy.  They  are,  as  judged 
by  their  own  harsh  canons,  intruders,  usurpers,  uncatholic, 
uncanonical,  and  dissenters  from  the  only  true,  primitive,  and 
apostolic  church  in  these  lands,  which,  on  their  own  princi- 
ples, is  no  other  than  the  presbyterian.4 

§  5.     Conclusion. 

We  have  now  concluded  what  the  limits  of  this  work  will 
permit  us  to  say  in  vindication  of  the  faith  and  order  of  our 
fathers.  Our  church  has  been,  in  ten  thousand  ways,  chal- 
lenged to  the  contest,  by  the  bold  and  reckless  assertions  of 
prelatists  and  papists.  We  have  long  borne  in  patience  and 
in  silence.  While  the  armies  of  the  Philistines  have  been 
holding  us  up  as  cowards  to  the  contumely  of  all  men,  such 
has  been  our  love  of  peace  and  charity,  and  our  desire  to  be 
engaged  in  seeking  the  immediate  benefit  of  the  souls  of  men, 
that  in  this  country,  during  the  last  century,  but  three  cham- 
pions have  found  leisure  to  go  forlh  and  meet  these  boasting 
Goliahs.  The  Rev.  Dr.  Miller,  the  Rev.  Dr.  Mason,  and  the  Rev. 

1)  Ramsay,  Hist.  S.  C.  vol.  ii.  p.  mind  the  reader,  we  use  the  term  pres- 
25.  byterian  in  its  large  comprehension, 

2)  P.  15,  see  also  p.  42.  and  therefore  purposely  avoid  any  in- 

3)  Origin  of  the  Prayer  Book,  pp.  vidious  comparisons,  between  denom- 
10G,  113.  by  Mr.  Odenheimer  of  Phil.  inations  who  regard  one  another  as 

4)  In  this  discussion  we  again  re-  brethren  in  the  Lord. 


CHAP.  III.]  CONCLUDING    REMARKS.  543 

Dr.  Rice,  have  ventured  forth,  like  other  Davids,  and,  with  the 
sling  and  stones  gathered  from  the  brook  of  sacred  writ,  have 
achieved  a  noble  conquest  over  all  the  might  and  power  of 
their  heavy-armed  antagonists.  Others,  indeed,  have  ren- 
dered able  service  in  a  more  limited  measure.1  These,  how- 
ever, have  done  so  with  manifest  reluctance,  and  have  hast- 
ened back  to  more  congenial  occupations.  Our  enemies, 
nevertheless  though  thrice  signally  defeated,  with  new  and 
multiplied  reinforcements,  still  give  battle.  There  is  no  pos- 
sible opportunity,  artifice,  or  device  passed  by,  that  may 
promote  their  interests,  or  injure  our  cause.  Their  arms  are 
opened  to  every  deserte^  who  has  been  driven  from  our  camp 
by  his  own  instability,  failure,  disappointed  ambition,  woun- 
ded pride,  or  vanity  and  chagrin,  who  is  held  up  to  the  world 
as  a  splendid  trophy  of  the  power  of  their  principles ;  and 
thus  do  they  glory  in  what  ought  to  be  their  shame,  and  to 
fill  them  with  confusion  of  face.  Every  writer  among  them 
is  a  defamer  of  presbytery,  and  asserls  his  bravery  by  the 
loudness  of  his  challenge,  and  the  hardihood  with  which  he 
asseverates  what  has  been  again  and  again  disproved.  Their 
press,  in  every  city  and  state  throughout  our  extended  union, 
is  filled  with  the  praises  of  prelacy  and  popery,  and  the  most 
distorted  pictures  of  presbyterianism.  Even  in  our  most 
refined  communities,  and  before  the  most  intelligent  audien- 
ces, as  in  Charleston,  the  veriest  tyros  in  divinity,  who  know 
no  more  about  the  controversy  than  they  have  learned  in  the 
school  of  prejudice,  are  heard  uttering  the  thunders  of  dam- 
nation, while  they  pour  forth  the  vials  of  wrath  upon  us  aliens 
from  the  commonwealth  of  Israel,  and  strangers  to  the  cove- 
nant of  promise. 

In  these  circumstances,  it  is  time  for  us  to  awake.  Our 
silence  has  been  misinterpreted,  our  patience  abused,  and  our 
charity  perverted,  to  the  injury  of  the  truth,  and  to  the  support 
of  bigotry  and  error.  We,  then,  may  be  pardoned,  who, 
emboldened  by  diligent  preparation  and  the  implored  assis- 
tance of  Him  whose  cause  we  plead,  have  come  forth  to  lend 
our  feeble  help  to  the  Lord  against  the  mighty.  We  have 
not,  therefore,  been  content  to  stand  in  the  breach.  We  have 
met  the  enemy  on  his  own  chosen  grounds,  and  engaged  him 
with  his  own  weapons.  Our  warfare  is  not  merely  defensive, 
but  aggressive.  We  have  reclaimed  territory  as  ours  by  ina- 
lienable rights,  which  our  opponents  have  long  possessed  by 
right  only  of  usurpation.     We  have  endeavored  to  make  good 

I)  Such  as  Mr.  Barnes,  and  recently  the  Rev.  Mr.  Duffield,and  Mr.  Eddy. 


544  CONCLUDING    REMARKS.  [BOOK  III. 

our  title  to  an  inheritance  for  which  prelatists  plead  custom, 
and  we  a  divine  charter ;  to  plant  the  standard  of  apostolic 
order,  where  the  gaudy  banner  of  patristical  formality  had 
long  waved ;  and  again  to  garrison  those  outposts  from  which 
our  enemies  have  been  too  long  permitted  to  harass  us. 

The  prelatic  claims  we  have  shown  to  be  utterly  untenable, 
either  by  Scripture  or  truly  primitive  antiquity.  There  is 
against  the  system  a  negative  testimony  which  is  in  itself 
overwhelming. 

By  this  doctrine  it  is  taught,  that  Christ  and  his  apostles  in- 
stituted three  orders  in  the  ministry  ;  that  to  the  first  of  these 
they  delegated  all  the  authority  imparted  to  the  church,  and  the 
exclusive  right  of  ordaining  any  to  the  gospel  ministry  ;  that 
this  arrangement  was  made  an  essential  element  in  the  being 
and  continuance  of  the  church ;  and  that,  as  such,  it  was 
enjoined  upon  all  their  followers,  and  instituted  in  every 
church.  Now  this  being  so,  it  is,  as  has  been  shown,  morally 
certain  that  they  would  have  explicitly  announced  the  doc- 
trine, and  that  the  fact  of  its  apostolic  institution  in  all  the 
churches  would  have  been  made  certain.  The  very  contrary, 
however,  is  the  truth  in  the  case.  This  system  has  not  been 
explicitly  taught,  in  the  New  Testament,  or  in  the  early  fath- 
ers, even  in  those  places  where  it  must  have  been  inevitably 
introduced.  No  triple  commission  is  to  be  found  ;  no  exclu- 
sive grant  to  the  prelatic  order  ;  no  affirmation  of  the  essen- 
tiality of  this  system  to  the  existence  and  order  of  the  church. 
This,  as  has  been  fully  shown,  is  largely  admitted.  And  it 
is  further  granted  that  these  three  orders  of  ministers  were  not 
established  in  some  of  the  apostolic  churches,  while  we  con- 
fidently challenge  proof  for  their  existence  any  where,  during 
at  least  three  centuries.  To  say,  then,  that  from  the  apostles' 
time  these  orders  have  existed,  and  have  been  regarded  as  they 
are  by  prelatists  now,  is  most  preposterous  and  absurd. 

We  have,  however,  shown  that  there  is  positive  proof  in 
the  scriptures  and  the  fathers  against  this  theory,  and  in  con- 
firmation of  all  the  essential  principles  of  presbytery.  Every 
power  claimed  by  prelatists  as  peculiarly  their  own  by  divine 
gift,  we  have  proved  to  belong,  by  divine  right,  to  all  the  min- 
isters of  the  gospel,  who  are  in  general  denominated  presby- 
ters. Every  church  spoken  of  in  the  New  Testament,  and  by 
the  apostolic,  primitive,  and  early  fathers,  was  parochial,  and 
not  diocesan,  that  is,  it  was  presbyterian ;  and  the  primitive 
government  of  the  church  was  the  episcopacy  of  presbytery, 
and  not  of  prelacy. 

The  evidence  in  favor  of  this  original  constitution  of  the 


CHAP.  III.]  CONCLUDING  REMARKS.  545 

church  of  Christ,  we  have  traced  through  every  age  of  the 
church.  The  most  eminent  fathers  have  turned  king's  evi- 
dence, and  given  solemn  testimony  against  the  usurpations  of 
prelacy.  Those  who,  in  every  period  of  the  church,  stood 
forth  in  defence  of  the  faith  once  delivered  to  the  saints, 
contended  also,  and  that  earnestly,  for  presbylcrial  polity, 
against  the  despotism  of  the  hierarchy.  The  whole  body  of 
the  schoolmen  taught  the  scripturalness  of  the  fundamental 
principles  of  presbyterianism.  The  glorious  company  of  the 
reformers  —  Waldensian,  Bohemian,  German,  French,  Scot- 
tish, and  English — agreed  in  the  maintenance  of  these  same 
doctrines.  They  were  professed  by  the  ancient  Culdees  of 
Ireland  and  Scotland,  in  the  west;  by  the  Vallenses,  in  the 
south  ;  and  by  the  Syrians  and  Alexandrians,  in  the  East. 
Prelacy  is  therefore  a  novelty,  an  innovation  ;  and  while  sus- 
tained by  the  practice  of  a  corrupted  and  degenerate  church, 
through  many  ages,  has  been  condemned  by  the  wisest  and 
the  best  men,  in  all  ages,  and  in  all  parts  of  the  church. 


GO 


NOTE  A. 
BOOK  I.  CHAPTER  VI.  P.  156. 

ON    RULING    ELDERS. 

It  would  appear  to  be  unquestionable,  that  in  the  fathers,  the  term  presbyter 
was  always  exclusively  applied  to  ordained  spiritual  advisers,  who  were  dis- 
tinguished from  the  laity.  Hence,  in  latin,  the  term  presbyter  was  rendered  by 
sacerdos,  pastor,  and  the  like.  The  late  Dr.  Wilson,  in  his  learned  work  on  the 
government  ofth^  churches,  has  examined  all  the  fathers  of  the  first  six  centur- 
ies, and  is  very  confident,  that  they  never,  in  any  case,  refer  to  an  order  of  men 
similar  to  our  ruling  elders,  under  the  term  presbyters.  (  Prim.  Govt,  of  the  Ch. 
Phil.  1S33,  p.  372. )  The  same  conclusion  was  arrived  at,  by  the  celebrated 
Elondel,  (De  Jure  Pleb.;  in  Reg.  Eccl ;  in  Jameson's  Cyprian  us  Isotinus,  p. 
541,)  by  Baxter,  (Baxter  on  Episc,  and  Orme's  Life  of,  pp.  74,  77,)  by  profes- 
sor Jameson,  (Cyprianus  Isot.  pp.  517,  540,  544,  546,)  by  the  authors  of  Smec- 
tymnuus,  (Lond.  1641,  pp.  72-74,)  by  many  of  the  French  presbyterian 
churches,  (Quick's  Synodicon,  vol.  i.  p.  229,  and  vol.  ii.  p.  472,  in  Dr.  Wil- 
son, ibid,  p.  247,)  by  Vitringa,  (De  Synag.  Vet.  pp.  479,  482,  4S4,)  by  Boyse, 
(Anct.  Episc.  p.  208,)  by  many  presbyterians,  (Jameson's  Cyp.  Isot.  pp.551, 
552,  555,)  by  some  even  of  the  members  of  the  Westminster  Assembly, 
(Lightfoot's  Works,  vol.  xiii.,  and  Dr.  Alexander's  Hist,  of  the  Assembly,  pp. 
103,  104,  217,  259,)  by  the  church  of  Geneva,  (Laws  of  Geneva,  Lond.  1643, 
where  they  are  called  commissioners  of  the  seniory,  and  deputies,  and  were 
not  ordained;  see  pp.  1,  3,  5,  &c.,)  by  Calvin  himself,  in  his  earlier  years,  (Dr. 
Wilson,  ibid,  p.  247,)  and  by  the  Remonstrants  of  Holland,  (Confession  of  the 
Remonstr.  p.  225,  Lond.  1676.)  The  Second  Book  of  Discipline  provided,  that 
three,  four,  or  more  particular  kirks,  might  have  one  eldership  common  to 
them  all,  according  to  the  practice  of  the  primitive  church,  (ch.  vii.  see  Life  of 
Melville,  vol.  i.  p.  168.)  This,  also,  was  the  opinion  of  the  learned  Mosheim, 
who  sustains  it  at  some  length,  (see  Comment,  on  the  Affairs  of  Christ.  Bef. 
Constantine,  vol.  i.  pp.  215-218,  Lond.  1813,)  and  thinks  there  is  clear  proof, 
that  while  some  presbyters  governed  and  instructed  the  church  at  home,  and 
were  thus  the  presiding  or  governing  presbyters,  (TrpiKrvaiTis  vpur/Si/repot,)  others 
occupied  themselves  in  converting  the  Jews  and  heathen  from  their  errors, 
and  in  bringing  them  into  the  fold  of  Christ.  These,  therefore,  labored  in 
word  and  doctrine,  (awr/avr*.)  (See  his  explanation  of  this  word,  and  its  usus 
loquendi,  as  in  1  Cor.  4:  12,  and  1  Cor.  15:  10;  Rom.  16:12;  and  also 
Voetius,  Polit.  Eccles.  torn.  iii.  p.  441.)  The  reformed  churches  of  Hungary 
and  Transylvania,  while  they  regarded  ruling  elders  as  allowable,  did  not  intro- 
duce them  into  their  own  polity,  ( Voetius"s  Polit.  Eccl.  torn.  iii.  p.  459.)  Mr. 
Baxter  states,  that  his  opinion  was,  that  of  'the  greater  part,  if  not  three  for 
one  of  the  English  ministers ;'  that  it  was  the  published  opinion  of  Mr.  Vines, 
one  of  the  Westminster  divines ;  and  that  in  the  county  in  which  he  then  of- 
ficiated, no  such  officers  were  instituted,  (Five  Disputations  on  Ch.  Govt.  Lond. 
1659,  pref.  p.  4.)  Grotius  maintains,  '  that  the  perpetual  offices  in  the  church 
are  two,  that  of  presbyters  and  deacons.  Those  I  call  presbyters,  with  all  the 
ancient  church,  who  feed  the  church  with  the  preaching  of  the  gospel,  the  sac- 
raments, and  the  keys,'  (De  Imperio.  c.  10,  p.  267  ;  in  ibid,  p.  39.)  Gieseler  re- 
jects the  distinction  between  teaching  and  ruling  elders  as  an  invention  of  Cal- 
vin, (Text  Book  of  Eccl.  Hist.  vol.  i.  p.  58.     Neander,  also,  although  a  very 


ON    RULING    ELDERS. 


547 


strong  advocate  of  the  original  presbyterianism  of  the  church,  yet  is  decidedly 
of  opinion,  that  there  was  no  such  distinct  class  of  officers  as  ruling  elders,  in 
our  sense  of  the  office.  He  traces  their  existence  only  to  the  North  Atncan 
churches,  in  the  fourth  century,  in  which  there  were  certain  leaders  of  the 
church  called  '  seniores  plebis,'  but  not  presbyters  or  elders;  who  were  ex- 
pressly'distinguished  from  the  clerical  body  ;  and  who,  as  the  representatives 
of  the  congregation,  constituted  a  middle  class  between  the  clergy  and  the 
laity  for  whose  interests  they  consulted,  (Hist,  of  the  Chr.  Rel.  and  Ch.  vol.  1. 
p  205  See  also  the  Note,  where  he  quotes  several  authorities  similar  to  those 
given  above,  and  to  the  same  effect.)  These  he  regards,  as  the  remains  of  a 
similar  arrangement  in  the  previous  ages,  in  perfect  accordance  with  the  views 
we  have  already  advanced.  . 

For  that  there  were  officers  in  the  primitive  church,  and  probably  in  the 
apostolic,  similar  to  our  elders,  we  believe.  But  they  were  called  by  the  an- 
cients seniors,  and  are,  probably,  '  the  helps  or  governments '  spoken  of  by  the 
apostles,  and  '  the  brethren  '  who  sat  in  their  councils  and  presbyteries,  as  rep- 
resentatives of  the  people,  who  could  not,  as  in  Jerusalem,  have  all  assembled 
together.  These  officers  are  frequently  spoken  of  by  the  fathers,  who  carefully 
distinguish  them  from  presbyters.  The  word  senior  is  never  applied  by  them 
To  ministers,  but  only  to  these  laymen.  Thus  in  Optatus  and  Augustine,  we 
read  of  bishops,  presbyters,  deacons,  and  seniors,  et  seniores,  or  seniores  pkbis, 
seniors  of  the  people,  (Opt.  de  Schism,  lib.  i.  c.  17;  Aug.  Ep.  137;  and  Contr. 
Crese.  Gramm.  lib.  iii.  c.  56,  &c.)  Similar  quotations  might  be  produced  from 
Origen,  and  many  others,  (see  given  in  Smectymn-'us,  pp.  72-74,  and  in  Br 
Wilson,  as  above,)  '  by  all  which,'  say  the  authors  of  Smectymnuus,  who  were 
members  of  the  Westminster  Assembly,  'it  is  apparent,  1,  that  in  the  ancient 
church  there  were  some  called  seniors;  2,  that  these  seniors  were  not  clergy- 
men; 3,  that  they  had  a  stake  in  governing  the  church  and  managing  the  af- 
fairs thereof;  and,  4,  that  seniors  were  distinguished  from  the  rest  of  the  people.' 
The  whole  burden  of  proof,  therefore,  rests  on  those  who  generalize  the  term 
presbyter  so  as  to  include  Ruling  Elders.  The  presumption  is  entirely  against 
them.  And  solid  proof  they  ought  assuredly  to  bring  forward,  belore  confound- 
ing the  scripture  statements  and  terms,  so  as  to  make  them  mean  nothing  in 
particular,  and  to  have  no  special  or  official  application  — and  thus  involving 
us  in  the  absurdity,  that  all  ruling  elders  are  bishops  and  teachers,  and  are, 
as  they  must  therefore  necessarily  be,  entitled  to  preach,  to  administer  sacra- 
ments, and  to  ordain. 


INDEX   I. 


TEXTS  OF  SCRIPTURE  PARTICULARLY  ILLUSTRATED. 


Page. 

Matt  16:  19, 136 

Matt.  21:   1, 62,  &c. 

Matt.  28:  19, 75,  &c. 

Mark,  6 :  7-14, 62,  &c. 

Luke,  9  :   1-7, 62,  &c. 

Luke,  10:1- 17, 62,  &c. 

John,  20  :   21 , 70  -  74,  &c. 

Acts,  13:  l,&c. 129,  174,  &c. 

Acts,  14:  23,- 200 

Acts,  15:  2-6, 119,&c.l47,&c. 

Acts,  16:  4, 119,  &c. 

Rom.  12:  8, 153 

1  Cor.  5, 141, 145,  &c. 

1  Cor.  12:  4-7, 93 

1  Cor.  12:28, 153,  &c. 

1  Cor.  14:  29, 143 

1  Cor.  14:32, 152 

2  Cor.  2:  6, 146 

2  Cor.  2:23, 34 

2  Cor.  2:  12, 141 

2  Cor.  8:23, 257,  &c. 

Eph.2:  20, 105,  &c. 

Eph.4:  11,12,-  .33,83,85,107,128 

Phil.  2:25, 257,  &c. 

Phil.  4:18, 257,  &c. 


Page. 

1  Thess.l  :  1, 263 

1  Thess.  2:  6, 263 

1  Thess.  5:  12, 152,153 

1  Tim.  1:  20, 146 

1  Tim.  4:14, 1S7,  I96,&c. 

1  Tim.  5:1, 143,  208,  &c. 

1  Tim.  5:  17, 154-157 

1  Tim.  2:7, 34 

1  Tim.  3:13, 244 

1  Tim.  5:19, 209,  &c. 

1  Tim.  5:  22, 143,  201,  &c, 207,  &c. 

2  Tim.  1:6, 194,  &c. 

2  Tim.2:  2, 128 

2  Tim.  4: 1,2, 206,  &c- 

Philem.  24 :  38 

Philem.  9:38 

Heb.  13:  1.17, 154 

Heb.  13:   17, 39 

1  Pet.  5:   2,3, 139 

Tit.  1:  5, 201,  &c. 

Tit.  1:   9-11, 124 

Rev.  4:  4, 287 

Rev.  5:   6, 2S7 

Rev.  7:    18, 287 

Rev.  14:  3, 287 


INDEX    II. 


GENERAL    INDEX    OF    SUBJECTS, 


A. 

Aerius,  his  case  considered,  391. 

Alexandria,  the  church  of,  presbyte- 
rian,  445,  &c. 

Angel  of  the  church,  explained,  39. 

Andronicus,  not  a  prelate,  254. 

Apostles,  The,  were  ordinary  as  well 
as  extraordinary  ministers,  28,  &c, 
41  ;  were  presbyters,  36,  &c. 

Apostolical  Succession,  the  tendency 
of  the  prelatical  doctrine  of,  p.  17; 
its  catalogues  and  bishops  ex- 
plained on  presbyterian  principles, 
164,  &c. 

Apostolical  Fathers,  all  in  favor  of 
presbytery,  359,  &c,  443. 

Apostolical  Churches,  all  presbyte- 
rian, 442. 

B. 

Bavarian  Churches,  The,  were  presby- 
terian, 448. 

Bishop,  the  term  explained,  36,  37, 
109,  &c. 

Bishops  and  Presbyters,  the  same, 
108,  &c. ;  this  now  acknowledged, 
though  formerly  denied,  110,  &c. 

Bishop,  the  usurpation  of  this  title  by 
prelates,  demonstrative  of  their  un- 
scriptural  origin,  116,  &c. 

Bishop,  contrast  between  the  ancient 
and  modern,  237,  &c. 

Bohemian  Church,  The,  was  presby- 
terian, 520. 

Britain,  the  primitive  churches  of, 
were  presbyterian,  449,  &c. 


Chorepiscopi,  what  they  were,  they 
ordained,  B.  i.  ch.  x.  §  1. 

Church  government,  some  determin- 
ate scheme  of,  in  Scripture,  50,  &c; 
importance  of,  56 ;  influence  on 
civil  government,  56. 

Church,  early  corruption  of,  297,  &c. 


Colluthus,  case  of,  218. 

Commission,  The  final,  the  charter  of 
the  church  and  ministry,  B.i.  ch.iii. ; 
but  one  commission,  do.;  was  not 
given  to  the  apostles,  but  to  the 
church,  76,  &c;  the  only  source  of 
ministerial  authority,  85;  inferen- 
ces from  it,  8S,  &c  ;  was  given  to 
presbyters,  and  not  to  prelates, 
91,  &c. 

Confirmation,  power  of,  exercised  by 
presbyters,  221. 

Contradiction  of  prelatists,  97. 

Culdees,  The,  claimed  apostolicity, 
22;  their  history  and  character,  485, 
&c. ;  were  protestants  in  doctrine, 
489,  &c. ;  abjured  every  thing  Rom- 
ish, 49,  &c. ;  were  presbyterian, 
493,  &c. 

D. 

Deacons,  not  an  order  of  ministers, 
proved  at  length,  and  all  objections 
answered,  B.  i.ch.  xi.;  the  primitive 
and  prelatical  entirely  different, 
252,  253. 

Dioceses,  when  first  introduced,  238  ; 
size  of  modern  dioceses,  239. 

Divine  right,  how  far  we  claim  it, 
51  -  55. 

E. 

Egypt,  the  churches  in,  were  presby- 
terian, 448. 

English  ordinations,  performed  by 
laymen,  226-22S. 

English  reformers,  were  presbyterians, 
429,  &c. 

Epaphroditus,  not  a  prelate,  255,  257. 
&c. 

Evangelists,  were  presbyters,  106, 
203,  &c. 

F. 
Fathers,  The,  their  value,  B.  ii.  ch.  i.; 


INDEX    II. 


;si 


not  old  but  young;,  318,  &c,  their 
remains  partial  and  corrupt,  318; 
their  testimony  discordant,  320; 
teach  us  not  to  trust  in  their  testi- 
mony, 322;  their  testimony  not  ap- 
plicable to  this  controversy,  325; 
how  far  their  testimony  is  admitted, 
826;  the  greftt  weight  to  be  attach- 
ed to  their  testimony,  in  favor  of 
presbytery,  327 ;  the  artifices  of 
prelatists  respecting,  328  ;  classifi- 
cation of,  336 ;  apostolical,  the  val- 
ue of,  33G  ;  great  importance  of  the 
testimony  of  the  later,  to  presbyte- 
ry, 385,  &c. 
French  church,  The,  was  presbyte- 
rian,  427. 


Gaul,  The  churches  of,  presbyterian, 

4-44. 
Greek  church,  testimony  of,  in  favor 

of  presbytery,  419. 

H. 

High  priests,  The,  were  not  prelates, 
2S0,  281 ;  Christ,  the  only  High 
Priest  now,  282,  &c. 

Hussite,  The  churches  of  the,  were 
presbyterian,  517,  &c. 

I. 

Ignatius's  Epistles,  corrupted  and  in- 
terpolated, 349,  350,  &c. ;  contain 
manifest  errors,  351,  352;  do  not 
support  prelacy,  353,  &c. ;  are  fa- 
vorable to  presbytery,  355. 

Ireland,  the  source  of  Wickliffe's opin- 
ions, 457. 

Ireland,  the  primitive  churches  of, 
were  presbyterian,  460,  &c. 

Ives,  Bishop  of  North  Carolina,  un- 
manly conduct  of,  428. 


James,  the  apostle,  not  a  prelate,  265, 

&c. 
Jewish    church,  The,   not  prelatical, 

278,  &c. ;  presbyterian,  285. 
Junia,  not  a  prelate,  254. 
Jurisdiction,  the  power  of,  explained, 

135,  belongs  to  presbyters,  13C,  ike. 

M. 

Ministers,  their  power  limited,  89. 

Ministry,  the  nature  of,  82. 

Ministry,  the  dignity  and  glory  of  the, 
19. 

Moravian  church,  The,  are  presbyte- 
rian, 525,  &c. 


N. 
New  York  Review,  121. 

O. 

Ordination,  what  it  is.  109;  presby- 
ters are,  by  divine  right,  authorized 
to  ordain.  167,  &c,  173,  &c. ;  why 
necessary,  172  ;  by  presbyters,  sus- 
tained by  Scripture,  the  fathers,  the 
schoolmen,  and  the  universal  judg- 
ment of  the  church,  B.  i.  ch.  ix. 
and  x. ;  by  presbyters,  is  valid  and 
regular,  234,  Ike. ;  is  more  valid,  cer- 
tain, and  regular,  than  prelatical  or- 
dination, 23G,  &c. 

P. 

Patrick,  St.,  doubts  as  to  bis  exis- 
tence, 463;  true  history  of,  463:  had 
no  connection  with  Rome,  474,  &c; 
not  a  bishop  or  a  prelate,  478;  was 
a  presbyterian,  479. 

Paphnutius,  case  of,  401. 

Paid  and  Barnabas  ordained  by  pres- 
byters, 174,  &c. 

Paulicians,  their  history,  &c,  406,  &c. 

Preaching,  all  divinely  qualified  per- 
sons at  first  preached,  81  ;  dignity 
of.  123,  126,  &C-;  is  the  function  of 
presbyters,  123;  not  considered  ne- 
cessary to  prelates,  125. 

Prelacy,  impiety  of,  67-69,  79,  SO, 
285,286;  early  introduction  of  ac- 
counted for,  295;  universal  preva- 
lence, assertion  of,  refuted,   307,  &c. 

Prelates,  the  powers  claimed  for,  57, 
58,  122  ;  not  described  in  the  N.  T., 

107,  &c;  not  given  to  preaching, 
125. 

Prelatists,  their  contradictions,  97 ; 
their  sophistical  arguments  founded 
on  mere  names,  119,  ike. ;  their  tes- 
timony in  favor  of  presbyters,  161, 
&c;  their  sophistical  expedients 
exposed,  328,  &c. 

Presbyter,  the  term  explained,  37, 109, 
110. 

Presbyters,  female,  existed  in  the 
apostolic  and  primitive  churches, 
208,  &c. 

Presbyters,  the  succession  of,  the  only 
true  and  sure  one,  43;  possess  all 
the  powers  claimed  by  prelates,  57, 
&c. ;  alone  found  in  the  apostolic 
churches,  102;  of  divine  institution, 
102,  &c  ;  conjoined  with  the  apos- 
tles, in  the  foundation  of  the  church, 
105,    &c. ;  identified    with   bishops, 

108,  &c. ;  authorized  to  preach.  L22, 
&c;  to  conduct  public  worship, 
129;  to  baptize,  130;   to  administer 


552 


IxNDEX    II. 


the  Lord's  supper,  132 ;  clothed  with 
the  power  of  jurisdiction.  B.  i.ch.  vi. ; 
presided  over  the  apostolic  church- 
es, 149;  can  ordain,  167,  &c. 

Presbyterian  church,  duty  of,  18. 

Presbyterian,  the  church  was,  during 
our  Lord's  ministry,  57,  &c. ;  also  at 
his  ascension,  70,  &c. 

Presbyterian  church  is  the  oldest  of 
all  others,  528,  &c ;  older  than  any 
of  the  reformed  churches,  and  the 
Romish,  530,  &c. ;  is  the  oldest  in 
the  United  States  and  in  S.  C,  53S, 
&c. 

Presbyterians,  what  we  affirm  and  de- 
ny, 20 ;  apostolicity  claimed  by,  in 
all  ages,  20,  &c. 

Presbyterianism,  what  it  includes, 
442. 

Presbytery  is  the  true  episcopacy,  27  ; 
meaning  of  the  word,  1S9,  &c. 

Primitive  fathers,  their  testimony  in 
favor  of  presbytery,  366,  &c,  443. 

Prophets,  The,  were  presbyters,  105, 
&c,  182,  &c. 

R. 

Reformers,  The,  vindicated,  S6,  &c. ; 
all  presbyterian,  424,  &c. 

Romish  Church,  testimony  of,  in  fa- 
vor of  presbytery,  415. 

S. 
Schoolmen,  their  testimony  in  favor 

of  presbytery,  409. 
Scotland,  the  primitive  churches  in, 

were  presbyterian,  482,  &c. 
Scripture,  the   only  judge  of  the  truth 


of  presbytery  or  prelacy,  49,  &c. ; 
311,  &c. 

Scythian  churches,  The,  were  pres- 
byterian, 448. 

Security  of  presbyterianism,  45. 

Seven  angels,  The,  not  prelates,  270, 
&c. 

Seventy,  The,  the  same  order  as  the 
twelve,  59,  &c. 

Synagogue,  The  polity  of  the,  not 
prelatical,  but  presbyterian,  287,  &c. 

Syrian  churches,  their  presbyterian- 
ism, 420;  dishonorable  conduct  of 
prelatists  concerning,  422-424. 


The  Seven  Angels  not  prelates,  270. 
Timothy  was  ordained  by  presbyters, 

187,  &c. 
Timothy  and    Titus    conferred    only 

presbyterian   ordinations,   201,  &c; 

were  presbyters,  204,  &c. ;  were  not 

prelates,  258,  &c. 

U. 

Universal  consent,  prelatists  them- 
selves teach  us  that  it  is  insufficient 
to  establish  any  doctrine  or  prac- 
tice, 323,  &c. 

W. 

Wake,  archbishop,  unfairness   of,  340, 

341. 
Waldenses,  The,  were    presbyterian, 

500,  &c. 
Whittingham,  dean    of  Durham,  the 

case  of,  224. 
WicklifTe,  a  presbyterian,  457. 


INDEX  III. 


INDEX    OF    AUTHORS    AND   WORKS    QUOTED. 


A. 

Adams's  Religious  World,  540. 

Aerius,  191,  391,  &c. 

Aeneas  Sylvius,  78. 

Aiton's,  Dr.  Life  and  Times  of  Hen- 
derson, 25. 

Albertus  Magnus,  409. 

Alensis  Alexander,  409. 

Alexander  of  Ales,  78. 

Alexander,  Rev.  Dr.  546. 

Allix's  Ecclesiastical  History  of  the 
Albigenses,  509,  510. 

Allix,  on  the  Ancient  Church  of  the 
Albigenses,  23. 

Allsop's  Melius  Inquirendum,  55. 

Amalarius,  410. 

Ambrose,  83,  116,  206,  248,  323,  393. 

Ancient  Things  of  the  Cath.  Ch.287. 

A  Historical  Account  of  the  Brit- 
ish Church,  449. 

Anderson's  Defence  of  Presbyterian- 
ism,  253,  273,  346, 

Andrevves,  Bishop,  35. 

Apostolical  Constitutions,  The,  248, 
356,  396. 

Apostolical  Canons,  The,  248, 356, 396. 

Aquinas,  Thomas,  409. 

Aquisgranense,  Council  of,  114,  126. 

Arabic,  The,  Version,  191. 

Armachanus,  222,  412,  413. 

Atto,  Archbishop,  412. 

Augustine,  55, 127, 158,165, 323,404,&c. 

Aureolus,  219,  222. 

Aurelian  Council,  237. 

Axton,  The  Puritan,  quoted,  24,  96. 

Avton's  Primitive  Constitution  of  the 
'Church,  30,  33,  340,  &c. 

B. 

Bancroft,  Archbishop,  225. 
Barnes,  Episcopacy  Exam.  120,  145. 
Barnes,  Apostolic  Church,  263. 
Baronius,  324. 

Bastvvick's  Utter  Routing,  &c.  39, 147, 
148. 

70 


Baxter  on  Episcopacy,  25,  26,  27,43. 

45,  156,  164,  &c.  &c. 
Baxter  Disput.  on  Ch.  Govt.  237,  241. 
Baxter's  Diocesan  Churches,  269. 
Barrinsfton's,  Lord,  Works,  30,  31,  37, 

60,  61,  72,  75,81,  92,  105,  140,154, 

156,  178. 
Barrow,  136,  143,  298,  316,  341. 
Basil  the  Great,  126,  158,  323,  393. 
Basnage's  History  of  the  Jews,  294. 
Bayne's  Diocesan  Tryall,  223,  237. 
Bede,  55,  113.  447,  448,  &c.  484,  &c. 
Bellarmine,  30,45, 62, 129,219, 237, 324. 
Bengelius,  191. 
Ben  net,   Dr.   Theology  of  the   Early 

Christians,  421. 
Benson's  History  of  the   Planting  of 

Christ.  177,  178,  179. 
Benson  on  the  Worship  of  the  Early 

Christians,  38,  39,  41,  160. 
Benson's  Discourse  on  the  Powers  of 

the  Ministry,  74,  75,  150, 151. 
Bernaldus  Constantientis,  411. 
Bernard,  Dr.  222. 

Beveridge,  Bishop,  35,  64, 176,  211,278. 
Beza,  de  Tripl.  Episcop.  24. 
Beza,  de  Gradibus  Min.  Evang.  157. 
Biblical  Repertory,  255,  372. 
Bilson,  Bishop,  29,  35,  58,156,271,272. 
Bingham's  Ecclesiastical  Antiquities, 

80,  112,214,249,330. 
Binii  Concilia,  37,214,  217,  218,221, 

240, 402,  &c. 
Biscoe's  History  of  the  Acts,  176,177. 
Blair's  History  of  the  Waldenses,  408, 

507,  &c. 
Blackwood's  Magazine,  529. 
Blondel,  David,  Apology,  150,  218,  &c. 
Blondel,  164,  166. 
Bloomfield's    Critical   Digest,  32,  33, 

176,  183.  191,259. 
Bloomfield's    Greek    Testament,  36, 

183,  195. 
Blomneld,  Bishop,  Lecture   on  Acts, 

39,  182. 


554 


INDEX    III. 


Bonaventura,  409. 

Book  of  the  Universal  Kirk,  The,  429. 

Bost's  Hist,  of  Moravians,  209,  518. 

Bowden,  Dr.  30, 3S,75,  111,  115, 125,250. 

Bowles's  Past.  Evang.  127. 

Boyd's  Sermons  on  the  Church,  286. 

Boyse's  Account  of  the  Ancient  Epis- 
copacy, 26,  119,  134,  146,  147,  156, 
171,  183, &c. 

Brett,  Dr.  176. 

Brewster,  Rev.  John,  75, 176,  182. 

Bridges's  Christian  Ministry,  75,  127. 

Brine's  Works,  253. 

British  Critic,  540. 

British  Magazine,  The,  382. 

Broughton's  Ecclesiastical  Dictionary, 
237,  238,  416. 

Brokesby's  Government  of  the  Prim- 
itive Church,  63. 

Brooke,  Lord,  on  Episcopacy,  27,  85, 
110,  219,  221. 

Brooke's  History  of  Religious  Liberty, 
433,  434. 

Brown,  Dr.  on  Civil  Obedience,  68. 

Brown's  Vindication  of  Presbyterian 
Church  Government,  142. 

Brownlee,  Dr.  463. 

Bucer,  146. 

Buchanan's  Researches,  420. 

Buchanan's  History  of  Scotland,  4S2, 
&c. 

Bull,  Bishop,  117,442. 

Burgess,  Bishop,  72,  75,  420,  449,  &c. 

Burkitt,  176. 

Burnet,  Bishop,  39  Article,  30,  116. 

Burnet's  Vindication  of  the  Church 
of  Scotland,  176,213. 

Burnet's  Observations  on  the  1st  Can. 
37,  45,  112,  173,  209,  211,  217,  219, 
307. 

Burton's  Bampton  Lectures,  257,  270, 
297. 

Butler's  Lives  of  the  Saints,  463. 

C. 

Calvin,  on  Bishops,  23,  171.  Vindica- 
ted, 192. 

Calderwood's  Altare  Damascenum, 
429. 

Calamy's  Defence  of  the  Nonconfor- 
mists, 436. 

Calmet's  Dictionary,  254. 

Cajetan,  409,  418. 

Campbell's  Lectures  on  Ecclesiastical 
History,  29,  237,  262. 

Canus,  324. 

Canon  Law,  The,  412. 

Canones  Concil.  Trid.  30. 

Canons  of  the  Church  of  England. 
197. 


Canons  of  the  Protestant  Episcopal 

Church  in  the  United  States,  252. 
Carletan,  223. 
Cartwright.  24,  146. 
Carthage,  Council  of,  45,  160,  168,  218, 

248,  357. 
Casenas,  Michael,  413. 
Cashel,  Archbishop  of,  69. 
Cassander,  418. 
Cassian,  214. 

Caswall's  American  Church,  540. 
Catechism  of  the    Council  of  Trent, 

417,  418. 
Causa  Episcopatus  Hierarchici  Luci- 

fuga,  165,  239. 
Chalcedon,  Council  of,  215. 
Chalmers,  Dr.  27,  &c. 
Chamier,  160,  302. 
Chandler,  Dr.  58. 
Chapman's  Sermons  to  Presbyterians, 

177,  193. 
Chapman,  Dr.  67,  111,  116. 
Charleston  Gospel  Messenger,  49. 
Chauncy,  Dr.  Dudleian  Lecture,  196, 

349. 
Chester,  Bishop  of,  69. 
Chevalier's  Translation  of  the   Early 

Fathers,  349. 
Chillingworth,  39,328. 
Christ.  Indep.  of  Civil    Government, 

227. 
Christian  Observer,  The  London,  282, 

326,  328. 
Chrysostorn,  55,113,128,158,164,191, 

273,  323.  398. 
Churchman's  Monthly   Review,  The, 

39,  45,  69,  75,  206,  238,  351,  382. 
Church,     The,   Independent    of    the 

Civil  Power,  124. 
Church,  Account  of  the  Introduction 

of  the  Gospel  into  Britain,  449. 
Clarke's  Succession  of  Sacred  Litera- 
ture, 336,  366. 
Clarke's  History  of  Intolerance,  408. 
Clarkson's  Primitive  Episcopacy,  237, 

240,  479. 
Clarins,  176. 
Claude's  Defence  of  the  Reformation, 

83,  85,  234. 
Clement   Romanus,  quoted,   20,   340, 

&c.  in  full. 
Clement  Alexandrinus,  113,  165,  191, 

268,  270,  372,  &c. 
Coelus  Sedulius  Scotus,  398. 
Collier's  Church   History,    225,  449, 

453. 
Comenius,  519,  521,  &c. 
Concise    Historical   Account  of   the 

Moravian  Church,  525,  526. 
Conder's  Analytic  View  of  all  Reli- 
gions, 427. 


INDEX    III. 


555 


Confession  of  Faith,  84. 
Confession  of  the  Remonstrants,  546. 
Constantinople,  Council  of,  120. 
Conybeare's   Bampton  Lectures,  299, 

;  18,  843. 
Cook,  Dr.  View  of  Christianity,  29. 
Cooke,  Dr.  Henry,  27,  28. 
Cooke,  Dr.  75. 
Corbet  on  the  Church,  27, 30. 124, 133, 

138,  139,  102,170. 
Corpus  Juris,  Canonici,  231,  240,  247. 
Cosins,  Bishop,  225. 
Cotelerius,  209,  213,  340,  347,  357.  ^ 
Courayer  on  English  Ordinations,  175, 

225,  22S,  &c. 
Cox,  Dr.  430. 
Cramp's  Text   Book  of  Popery,  247, 

417. 
Cranmer,  Archbishop,  429,  430. 
Critici  Sacri,  191. 
Croft,  Bishop,  75,  211,  220,  342. 
Cummings's  Apology  for  Church  of 

Scotland,  27. 
Cyprian,  45,  SI,  83,  113,  159,  163,  165, 

191,  221,  237,  240,  299,  380,  &c. 
CXI.  Propositions  on  Church  Govern- 
ment, 107. 

D. 

D'Aubigne's  History  of  Reformation, 
82,  442. 

Dalcho's  History  of  Protestant  Epis- 
copal Church  in  South  Carolina, 
539. 

Daille*,  171,318,328. 

Damasus,  Pope,  391. 

Daubeny's  Guide  to  the  Church,  75, 
115,  116. 

Davenant,  Bishop,  29,  222. 

Day,  Dr.  431. 

Diamper,  Synod  of,  421. 

Diodati,  170. 

Dionysius,  409. 

Doddridge,  93,  153. 

Dodwell's  One  Priesthood, &c.l34,278. 

Dodwell's  Parasnesis,259. 

Dodwell's  Diss.  Cyp.  258. 

Douglas,  Advancement  of  Society, 
127. 

Douglass,  Rev.  David,  210. 

Drury's  Model  of  Church  Govern- 
ment, 107. 

Dryden,  340. 

Duffield  on  Episcopacy,  35. 

Duns  Scotus,  412. 

Du  Pin,  114,  136,  200,  218. 
Durandus,  222,  409. 

E. 
Edgar's  Variations  of  Popery,  451. 
Edinburgh  Review,  319. 


Edwards,  Dr.  John,  384. 

Elliott  on  Romanism,  45,  89,  94,98, 

209,222. 
Epiphanius,  191, 194,  396. 
Erasmus,  81,  127,  418. 

s  on  the   Church,  68,163,197, 

437. 
Estius,  142,  191,  418. 
Ethiopic,  The,  Version,  191. 
Eusebius,  41,113,  203,  205,  220,  387, 

&c. 
Eulychius,  220,  411. 

F. 
Faber's   Albigenscs,  23,  46,  198,  342, 

510,  &c. 
Faber's  DirT.  of  Roman.  31,  115,  311, 

337. 
Fabei  on  Transubstantiation,410. 
Ferguson  on  Puseyism,  36. 
Field,Dr.on  The   Church,  164,  215, 

221.  223. 
Firmilianus,  165,  380. 
Firmin's  Separation  Exam.  20. 
Forbes's   Irenicum,  151,  and  also  215, 

218. 
Forbesius,  45. 
Formularies  of  Faith  in  the  Reign  of 

Henry  VIII,  S7,  108. 
Fox's  Acts  and  .Monuments,  431, 435. 
Fronde's  Remains,  3S3.  386. 
Fuller's  Church  History,  127,449. 
Fulke's  Answer  to    Rhemish   N.  T. 
140. 

G. 

Gadsden,  Bishop,  542. 

Gaussen  on  Inspiration,  29. 

Gerson,  413. 

Gibbon's  Decline  and  Fall,  280. 

Gieseler's  Ecclesiastical  History,  43, 

114,362. 
Gillespie's  Aaron's  Rod  Blossoming, 

141,  142,  144,  151. 
Gilly's  Waldensian  Researches,  506. 
Gilly's  Vallenses,  505,  &c. 
Giraldus  Cambrensis,  492. 
Glover,  on  the  Church,  &c.  68. 
Godwyn's  Moses  and  Aaron.  280. 
Goode's  Rule  of  Faith,  45,  48,  80,  81, 
98,  102,118,  140,  150,  156,  160,  163, 
176,  220,  225,  321,  &c. 

Gordon's  History  of  Ireland,  470. 

Grant's  Nestorians,  305,  421. 

Grant's  Thaumaturgus,379. 

Gratian,78,  411. 

Gregory  of  Nyssa,  15S. 

Gregory  Nazianzcn,  127,  159,  393,  &c. 

Gregory  VII,  11. 

Gregory,  Pastorals  of,  126. 

Grolius,  43,  78,  80,  176,  283. 


556 


INDEX    III. 


H. 

Hale's  Analysis  of  Chron.  31. 

Hammond,  Dr.  30,  41,  176,  191,  203, 
205,  343,  358. 

Hales,  of  Eaton,  176. 

Hall's,  Bishop,  Episcopacy  by  Divine 
Right,  35. 

Hall,  Robert,  78. 

Hamilton,  Richard  Winter,  36, 176. 

Hampden's  Inaugural  Lecture,  89. 

Hampden  on  Tradition,  311,  320. 

Harmony  of  Confessions,  428,  &c. 

Hawkins  on  the  Apostolical  Succes- 
sion, 46,  48,  56,  74,  85,  176. 

Hawkins's  Bampton  Lectures,  50,  299, 
314,  424. 

Hawkins  on  the  Historical  Scripture 
of  the  Old  Testament,  67. 

Hawkins  on  Unauthoritative  Tradi- 
tion, 328. 

Hawks,  Dr.539,&c. 

Henry's  History  of  England,  449. 

Hermas,  346. 

Heber,  Bishop,  29,  96,  126, 442. 

Hegesippus,  268,  321. 

Henderson's  Review  and  Considera- 
tion, 35,  55,  253. 

Herschel's  Reasons  Why  I,  a  Jew, 
&c.  81,283,296. 

Hewett's  History  of  South  Carolina,  27. 

Hetherington's  History  of  Church  of 
Scotland,  57,  483. 

Heylin,  62,  225,  367. 

Hickes,  Dr.  68. 

Hilary,  SO,  112,  159,  164,  221,  390. 

Hinds's  History  of  Rise  of  Christ.  30, 
35,  60,  65,75,176. 

Hippolytus,  158,  377,  378. 

Hispalensis,  215. 

History  of  the  Society  for  Propaga- 
ting Religion,  541. 

Hoffman's  Anglo-Prussic  Bishopric, 
425. 

Holden  on  Tradition,  313. 

Honnieman's  Survey  of  Naphtali,  35. 

Hoogeven,  33. 

Hooker,  42,  64,  84,  107,  127,  131,  176, 
205. 

Hook,  Dr.  45. 

Hoppus's,  Dr.  Schism,  346. 349, 372.  &c. 

Home,  H.  T  Disc,  on  Church  of  Eng- 
land, 58,  197. 

Home's  Introduction  to  the  Scriptures, 
364. 

Horsley,  Bishop,  77. 

Hough's  History  of  Christianity  in 
India,  421. 

Hough's  Reply  to  Dr.  Wiseman,  449. 

Howel's  Familiar  Letters,  429. 

Hugo,  Victor,  409. 

Hume's  History  of  England,  472. 


robot's,  Dr.  Boyle's  Lectures,  316,328. 
Ignatius,  6S,  83,  165, 349,  &c.  &c. 
Irenajus,  112,  113,  158,  165,  368,  &c. 
Irving's,  Edward,  Confessions  of  Faith, 

531. 
Isidore,  of  Pelusium,  158. 
Isidore,  Hispalensis,  409,  411. 

J. 

Jamieson's  Historical  Account  of  the 

Ancient  Culdees,  22,   112,  113,  485, 

&c. 
Jameson,  Professor  in   Glasgow,  Na- 

zianzeni    Querela,  quoted,  24,    109, 

113,214,277. 
Jameson's  Sum  of  the  Episcopal  Con- 
troversy, 42,  109,  143,  166,  240,  318. 
Jameson's    Cyprianus    Isotimus,  120, 

127, 150,  160,  214,  239. 
Jennings's  Jewish  Antiquities, 151, 2S9. 
Jerome,  164,  173,  21S,  305,  318,   323, 

400,  &c. 
Jewel,  Bishop,  223,  304. 
Johnson's  Unbloody  Sacrifice,  134. 
Jones,  Rev.  William,  21,  116,  278. 
Jordan's  Review  of  Tradition,  32, 191, 

196,  202,  304,  326. 
Journals  of  Convention   of   Virginia, 

539. 
Jus  Divinum  Regiminis  Ecclesiastici, 

25,  55. 
Jus  Divinum  Ministerii    Evangelici, 

25,  26,  27,  45,  157,  172. 
Justin  Martyr,  80, 158. 
Justinian,  164. 

K. 

Kaye,  Bishop,  374. 

Keble,  223. 

Kelsale,  176. 

Kenrick's,  Bishop,  Theology,  quo- 
ted, 21. 

Kerr,  Dr.  420. 

King's  Primitive  Church,  45, 112,129, 
132,  346. 

Koppe,  191. 

Kuinoel,  289. 


Labbe,  207. 

Lambert,  the  Martyr,  431. 

Lardner,  184,  257. 

Laud,    Archbishop,   on   Liturgy    and 

Episcopacy,  65,  416. 
Lauder's  Ancient  Bishops  Considered, 

383. 
Launcelot,  Paul, 414. 
Laval's  History  of  the  Reformation  in 

France,  427. 
Lectures  on  Headship  of  Christ,  528. 


INDEX    III. 


557 


Ledwich's  Antiquities  of  Ireland,  23, 
45-2,  403,  &c. 

Leger.  512. 

Leland's  History  of  Ireland,  172,  489. 

Leo.  the  (ireat,  S3. 

Leslie,  on  Episcopacy,  417,  508. 

Letters  on  the  Fathers,  82,  128,  304 

Lewis's  Origines  Hebraeap,  279,  294. 

Library  of  the  Fathers,  376. 

Lightfoot,  37,  155,  176,  179. 

Lloyd's  Historical  Account,  &c.  495. 

Lombard,  409,412. 

London  Bishop  of,  in  favor  of  pres- 
bytery, 430. 

London  Protestant  Journal,  480. 

London  Quarterly  Review,  49. 

Lorimer,  on  the  Office  of  Deacon, 
249,253. 

Lorimer's  Manual  of  Presbytery,  27. 

Luther,  79,  87. 

M. 

Mackintosh's  History  of  England,  453. 

Macknight,  108, 151, 155, 177. 

Mars,  Roderick,  431. 

Marsh,  Bishop,  349,  365,  420. 

Maimonides,  155, 173. 

Mason,  Dr.  37,  69,139,  198. 

Mason,  Archdeacon,  222,  277. 

Mason's  Primitive  Christianity  in  Ire- 
land, 461,&c.476,&c. 

Maurus  Rabanus,  410. 

McCrie's  Life  of  Knox,  172,  433,  &c. 

Mc  Crie's  Miscellaneous  Works,  425. 

McCrie's  Life  of  Melville,  427. 

McCrie's  History  of  the  Reformation 
in  Italy,  428. 

McLean's  Works,  SO,  89,  90. 

Mede,  355. 

Medley's  Episcopal  Form  of  Church 
Government,  51,65. 

Mendham's  Venal  Indulgences  of  the 
Church  of  Rome,  280. 

Mendham's  History  of  the  Council  of 
Trent,  417. 

Methodist  Magazine  and  Quarterly 
Review,  75. 

Michaelis,  420. 

Middleton's  Evangelical  Biog.  518. 

Mildert,  Van,  Bishop,  124. 

Miller,  Dr.  Samuel,  27,  28,  2S9,  344. 

Milman's  History  of  Christianity,  291. 

Milton's  Works  on  Prelacy,  26,  34,  47, 
55,  155,211,280,  2S1. 

Moor,  De,  114. 

Morton's  Catholic  Apology,  237,  384. 

Mosheim's  Commentaries,  &c.  153, 
156,  243. 

Mosheim's  History  of  the  Church,  300. 

Murray,  Dean,  History  of  the  Catho- 
lic Church  in  Ireland,  465,  474. 


N. 
Natalus  Alexander's  Dissertation, 215, 

216,  372,  &C.44S,  &c. 
Neal's  History  of  the  Puritans,  27, 45, 

435,  kc. 
Neander's  History  of  Christian    Rrli- 

gion,  and  Church,  78,  144,  156,  280, 

344. 
Neander's  History  of  the  Planting  of 

Christianity,  &c.72, 78, 109, 140, 147, 

151,  154,  156,  176,  &c. 
Nelson's  Festivals  and  Fasts,  95. 
Newman  on  Romanism,  339. 
New  York  Review,  539. 
Nicene  Council,  165. 
Nicolas  I,  Pope,  215. 
Nolan's,  Dr.    Catholic     Character   of 

Christ.  38,  45,  46,  51,  68,  79,  83,  319, 

&c. 
Notes  of  the  Church  Examined,  216, 

324,442. 
Novatus,  380. 

O. 

Ocham,  414. 

Odenheimer,  Rev.  Mr.  533. 
(Ecumenius,  113,  128, 176,  191. 
Ogilby,  on   Lay  Baptism,  75,  76,  91, 

326,  338. 
Olyffe,  17o. 
Onderdonk,  Bishop,  18,  111,  119,  177, 

180. 
Optatus,  159. 
Origin  and  Compilation  of  the  Prayer 

Book,  454. 
Origen,  165,  191,  323,  378. 
Orme's  Life  of  Baxter,  546. 
Osborne's    Doctrinal    Errors   of    the 

Fathers,  328. 
Owen,  James,  on  Ordination,  193, 198, 

259,276. 
Owen's  Works,  29. 
Oxford's  Tracts,  quoted,  20,  21,  22,  48, 

49,  88,  134, 204,  304. 

P. 

Palmer's  Vindication  of  Episcopacy, 

46,219. 
Palmer,  on  the  Church,  S3, 94, 97, 107, 

112,124,  136,164,191,  246. 
Palmer's    Antiquity   of   the    English 

Liturgy,  239,451,  &c. 
Paget's  Power  of  Classes  and  Synods, 

Ml,  288. 
Paley,  Dr.  73. 
Paolo's    History    of   the    Council    of 

Trent.  417. 
Papias,  40.  204,  321. 
Paphnutius,  404. 
Parker's  Polit.  Eccl.  55,  146. 
Parkhurst,  31. 


558 


INDEX    III. 


Panormitanus,  222. 

Paul  Sarpi,  on  Benefices,  357. 

Pearson's  Life  of  Buchanan,  420. 

Pearson,  Bishop,  35,  40.  SO,  372. 

Pefrce's  Defence  of  Presbyterian  Or- 
dination, 30,  151.  181,  201. 

Fence's  Presbyterian  Ordination  Prov- 
ed Regular,  ,206. 

Perceval  on  the  Apostolical  Succes- 
sion, 38,  119,  his  falsity,  191. 

Pelagius,  113,  404. 

Perkins,  Dr.  Residence  in  Persia,  421. 

Petavius,  45,  418. 

Peter  Martyr.  14G. 

Pfaff,  2S9. 

Philostorgius,  220,  448. 

Picart's  Religious  Ceremonies,&c.292, 
293. 

Pictorial  History  of  England,  449,  462, 
487,  &c. 

Pierce's  Vindication  of  the  Dissent- 
ers, 99,  111. 

Pinkerton's  Translation  of  Platon,419. 

Pius,  Pope,  205. 

Platon,  Archbishop  of  Moscow,  419. 

Plea  for  Presbytery,  29,  139,  179.  223, 
349,  349. 

Polycarp,  165. 

Poole's  Synopsis,  191. 

Potter,  Archbishop.  32,  35,  38,  40,  58, 
59,  60,  65,  75,  S3, 96, 97, 103, 104, 105, 
122,  129,  138. 

Powell,  on  Apostolic  Succession,  45, 
119. 

Powell,  Professor,  of  Oxford,  on  Tra- 
dition, Supplem  68,  109,  320. 

Pratt's  Old  Paths.  30. 

Presbyterian  Review,  The,  26,  226. 

Presbyterian  ism  Defended,  27. 

Price's,  Dr.  History  of  Protestant  Non- 
conformity, 24. 

Primasius,  114,  191,406. 

Prynne's  English  Lordly  Prelacy,  125, 
265,  277,  435,  &c. 

Prynne's  Unbishopping  of  Timothy, 
202. 

Pusey,  Dr.  S3,  176,  177. 

Pusey's  Church  the  Converter  of  the 
Heathen,  106,  107,  203. 

Punchard's  History  of  Congregation- 
alism, 300,  408. 

Q. 

Quick's  Synodicon,  427. 

R. 

Rabanus  Maurus,  215. 

Ramsay's  History  of  South  Carolina, 

27,  540,  &c. 
Rapin's  History  of  England,  472. 
Redmayn,  Dr.  431. 


Reid's  History  of  the  Presbyterian 
Church  in  Ireland,  458. 

Remerus,  505,  510,  &c. 

Reland's  Antiquities  of  the  Jews,  151, 
155,289,204. 

Report  of  Edinb.  Celebration,  &c.  27. 

Reynold's  Conf.  with  Hart,  277. 

Rice,  Dr.  37,  42,  85,  108,  170,  171. 

Riddle's  Christian  Antiquities,  155, 
156,  160,209,  243. 

Riddle's  Ecclesiastical  Chronology, 
363,  364. 

Rivet,  3S4. 

Robertson,  Dr.  430. 

R-osenmuller,  196. 

Ruffinus,  165. 

Rule's  Cyprianic  Bishop  Examined, 
383. 

Rutherford's  Plea  for  Paul's  Presby- 
terian. 142,  164, 165,  253. 

Rutherford's  Due  Right  of  Presbyte- 
ries, 142. 


Sadeel,  182. 

Sage's  Vindication,  29. 

Salmero,  202. 

Salmasius,  SO,  359. 

Sanderson,  Bishop,  55,  56,  58,  75,  134, 

Saravia,  on  the  Priesthood,  28.  29,  30. 
31,  37,  41,  45,  80,  94,  125,  140,  &c. 

Scholefield,  of  Cambridge,  75,  81,87. 

Scholar  Armed,  The,  417. 

Scott,  Rev.  Thomas,  70,  71. 

Scott,  Rev.  John,  176. 

Scott's  Collection  of  Tracts,  245. 

Scotus,  Duns,  409. 

Second,  The,  Book  of  Discipline,  175. 

Sedulius,  114,  191,406. 

Selden,  35,  178,288,289. 

Seneca,  Joannes,  411. 

Severus,  404. 

Seville,  Council  of,  410. 

Sherlock,  Bishop.  61, 106,  183. 

Shuttleworth,  Bishop,  303. 

Simpson's  British  Ecclesiastical  His- 
tory, 449. 

Sinclair's  Vindication  of  Apostolic 
Succession,  '30,  37,  38,  106,  192,203, 
232,  409. 

Sims's  Historical  Defence  of  the  Vau- 
dois,  508,  &c. 

Sion's  Royal  Prerogative,  55,  78,  146. 

Skelton,  176. 

Skinner,  Bishop,  106. 

Smectymnuus,  105,  237,  240,  277. 

Soames's  Elizabeth.  Age,  339. 

Soames's  Anglo-Saxon  Church,  449. 

Socrates's  Hist.  Eccl.  213,  214. 

Socrates,  165. 

Sozomen,  159. 

Spalatensis,  173. 


INDEX    III. 


559 


Spangenbergh,  527. 
Sparrow,  Bishop,  75,  76,  209. 
Spelman's  Concilia,  240,  449,  454. 
Stephanus's  Thesaurus,  140. 
Stillingfleet's  Irenicum^  30,39,45,  163, 

288 ,289,  &c. 
Stillingfleet's  Divine  Right,  Sec.  50. 
Stillingfleet's      Unreasonableness     of 

Separation,  271. 
Stillingfleet's     Rational    Grounds    of 

Protestant  Religion,  319. 
Stillin^lleet's     Origines     Britannicas, 

449,  451. 
Stuart's  Commentary,  153,  154. 
Stuart's  Hist,  of  Armagh,  453,478,  &c. 
Strype,  438. 

Suiceri  Thesaurus,  &c.  126,  191. 
Synesius,  404. 
Syriac,  The,  Version,  191. 


Taylor,  Jeremy,  29,  122,  176,  217,  322. 

Taylor's,  Isaac,  Process  of  Historical 
Proof,  147, 183. 

Taylor's,  Isaac,  Ancient  Christianity, 
281,  333. 

Taylor's,  Isaac,  Spiritual  Despotism, 
246,  251. 

Taylor's  C.  Apostolical  Baptism,  209. 

Taylor's  Biography  of  the  Age  of 
Klizabeth,  225,  436.  &c. 

Tertullian,  80,  112,  15S,  164,  165,  204, 
300,  322,  373,  &c. 

The  Image  of  a  Very  Christian  Bish- 
op, 431. 

The  Institution  of  a  Christian  Man, 
161,162,  168,432. 

The  Two  Liturgies  of  Edward  VI, 
Compared,  177. 

The  Declaration  of  the  Functions  of 
Bishops,  432. 

The  King's  Own  Book,  432. 

The  Case  of  the  Accommodation  Ex- 
amined, 25. 

Theodoret,  113,  158,  160,  164,  406. 

Theophylact,  15S,  176,  191. 

Thomas  Aquinas,  78. 

Thomassin,  249. 

Thorndike,  on  Primitive  Government 
of  the  Church,  39,  81,  84,  102,  142, 
154,  176. 

Tindal,432. 

Toland,490. 

Tostatus,  S3. 

Townsend's  New  Test.  31,  35,  250. 

Tracts  of  the  Anglican  Fathers,  313. 

Tudeschus,  Nicholas,  414. 

U. 

Urban,  Pope.  411. 

Usher's  Original  of  Bishops,  111,  279. 
Usher's  Reduction  of  Episcopacy,  161, 
164,  165. 


Usher's  Episcopal  and  Presbyterian 
Government  Conjoined,  191. 

Usher,  Judgment  of^  214. 

Usher's  Religion  of  the  Ancient  Irish, 
449,  452,  484,  &c. 

Usher's  Brit.  Eccl.  Antiq.  419. 

V. 

Vaughan's  Congregationalism, 41, 144. 

Vaughan's  Corruptions  of  Christian- 
ity, 257. 

Vaughan's  Life  of  Wickliffe,  408,  458, 
&c. 

Victor,  Bishop  of  Rome,  372. 

Vincentius,  325,  326. 

Vindiciae  Vindiciarum,  26. 

Vitringa  de  Synag.  Vet.  108,  151,  155, 
288. 

Voetius's  Political  Eccles.  156,290. 

Vossius,  357. 

W. 

Waddington's  Church  History,  299, 
374. 

Wake,  Archbishop,  39,  41,  176,  177, 
195,  196,  337,  &c. 

Walton,  191. 

Walker,  225. 

Welles,  Rev.  Noah,  27,  346. 

Wetstein,  195. 

Whateley's,  Archbishop,  Dangers  to 
the  Christian  Faith,  328. 

Whateley's,  Archbishop,  Kingdom  of 
Christ,  30,  36,  44,  46,  47,  48,  50,  76, 
85,  17(3. 

Whateley's,  Archbishop,  Origin  of  Ro- 
mish Errors,  137. 

Whateley's,  Archbishop,  Logic,  317. 

W'hitaker,  163,  259,  384. 

White's,  Bishop,  Lectures  on  the  Cat- 
echism. 289. 

Whitby,  30,  45,  77,  184,  195. 

Whitgift's  Defence,  111.2-0. 

Wliittingham,  Bishop,  510. 

Wickliffe,  458,  &c. 

Wilberforce's  Practical  View,  313. 

Willet's,  Dr.  Synopsis,  Paipismi,  65, 
114,  115,  129,176. 

Wilson's,  Dr.  Primitive  Government 
of  the  Church,  27, 33,44,  54,  81,110, 
157. 

Wilson,  Rev.  John, on  Deacons,244,247. 

Wilson.  Daniel,  Eishop,  420. 

Wilson's,  Dr.  Memoir  of  Bishop  White, 
245. 

Wiseman,  Dr.  302. 

Woodgate's  Bampton  Lectures,  30,  55, 
537. 

Woodhouse,  Rev.  G.  N.  339. 

Z. 

Zaga,    Zabo,  an  Ethiopic  Bishop,  419. 
Zanchius,  146. 
Zimmerman,  209. 


INDEX  IV. 


WORKS    ON  PRESBYTERIANISM. 


We  will  here  add  a  list  of  works  on  Presbyterianism,  as  a  contribution  to 
its  literature  —  a  proof  of  its  strength  —  and  a  guide  to  its  investigation.  The 
list,  however,  will  only  contain  distinct  works  on  the  subject,  and  not  the 
numerous  works  from  which  valuable  information  may  be  drawn  in  reference 
to  every  separate  branch  of  the  subject.  These  will  be  found  fully  referred  to 
in  the  work  itself. 

N.  B.     Those  marked  with  an  *  are  in  the  author's  possession. 


§1. 


Works  on  Presbyterianism,  by  Con- 
tinental Writers. 


*  Calvin's  Institutes  of  Religion. — 
Book  iv. 

Beza   de  diversis    ministrorum    grad- 

ibus  contra  Saraviam.  Geneva,  1594. 
Petr.   Viretus  de    verbo   Dei,    Sacra- 

mentorum.   et  ecclesiae   ministerio. 

Geneva,  1553,  folio. 
Anton.  Sadeelus  de  legitima  vocatione 

pastorum  eccl.  leformatae.    15S3. 
Dan.  Tossanus  de  legitima  pastorum 

evangelicorum  vocatione,  officio  et 

prcesidio.     Heidelb.  1590. 

*  Turretine  in  his  Institut.  Theol- 
ogical, torn.  iii.  de  distinctione  Epis- 
copi  et  Presbyteri. 

*  Vitringa  de  Synagoga  Vetere,  in 
which  he  shows  that  the  govern- 
ment of  the  synagogue  was  transfer- 
red to  the  christian  church. 

*  H.  Witsius  de  Vita  Timothei  and 
Exercitationes  Deylingii  Observa- 
tiones  Miscellanea?,  and  de  Synedriis 
Hebrasorum. 

Ursinus  Corpus  Doctrina?  Christiana?, 

page  5S2. 
Blondeli    Apologia  pro   sent.    Hiero- 

nymi  de  episcopis  et  presbyteris. 

*  Blondel  de  la  Sincerite  et  verite 
des  Eglises  reformees  de  France, 
&c.  A  Sedan,  1619. 

*  Blondel's  Actes  Authentiques  des 
Eglises  Reformees,  A.  Amsterdam, 
1655,  4to. 


Blondel  de  Jure  Plebis  in  Regimine 
Ecclesiastica. 

Gersom  Bucer  Dissert,  de  Gabern.  Ec- 
clesia?. 

Salmasius's  Apparatus  ad  Primat. 

*Voetius's  Politica?  Ecclesiastica?,  torn, 
iii.  at  large. 

VoetiusdeDesperata  Causa  Papatus. 

Irenaei  Philadelphii  (i.  e.  Ludovici 
Molinaei)  ad  Renatum  Venda?um  in 
qua  aperitur  mysterium  iniquitatis 
novissime  in  Anglia  redivivum  etex- 
cutitur  liber  Josephi  Halli  quo  asseri- 
tur  Episcopatum  esse  juris  divini. 
Amsterdam,  1641,  in  the  Old  South 
Lib.  Also  Ludovici  Molina?i  Apolo- 
gia, for  the  same  Londini,1641,indo. 

*  A  Defence  of  the  Reformation,  &c 
by  Monsieur  Claude,  Minister  of 
the  Reformed  Church  at  Charenton, 
2  volumes,  8vo.,  London,  1815. 

Paget's  (Minister  at  Amsterdam)  De- 
fence of  Church  Government. 

Paget's  Power  of  Classes  and  Syn- 
ods. This  I  have  had  and  examined. 

Boileau  de  Antiquo  Jure  Presbyte- 
rorum,  in  2  volumes,  12mo. 

La  Discipline  des  Eglises  Reformees 
de  France  par  J.  D'Huisseau,  Minis- 
tre  a  Saumur.  A.     Geneva,  1667. 

Wallonis's  Messalini  de  Episcopis  et 
Presbyteris  Dissert. 

Buxtorfi  Synagoga  Judaica.  Basil, 
1641. 

*  Daille's  (Minister  of  the  Reformed 

Church  in    Paris)  Treatise  on  the 


INDEX    IV. 


561 


Right  Use  of  the  Fathers  in  the  De- 
cision of  Controversies  existing  at 
this  day  in  Religion,  recently  reprin- 
ted in  English.     London,  1841. 

*Mosheim's  Church  History. 

*Mosheim's  Commentaries  on  the  Af- 
fairs of  Christians  before  the  time 
of  Constantine  the  Great.  Transla- 
ted by  Vidal,3  volumes,  Svo.  Lon- 
don, 1813. 

*  Neander's  History  of  the  Christian 
Religion  and  Church,  during  the 
three  first  centuries.  Translated  by 
Rose,  in  2  volumes,  Svo.  London. 

*  Neander's  History  of  the  Planting 
and  Trainingof  the  Christ.  Church 
by  the  Apostles.  Translated  by  J.  E. 
Ryland.  Edinburgh,  1842,  in  2  vol- 
umes, 12mo. 

*  DeMoor's  Commentarius  Perpetuus 
in  Johannis  Marckii  Compendi- 
um Theol.  Christ.  4to.  torn.  vi.  1771. 

*Mastrich's  Theoretico-Practica  The- 
ologia.     1799,  4to.  torn.  ii. 


$2. 


Works  on  Presbyterianism,  by  British 
Authors* 


Cartwright's  Replyes  to  an  Answere 
made  of  M.  Doctor  Whitgifte.  Lon- 
don, 1575  and  1577.  In  Mass.  Hist. 
Soc.  Libr. 

*Altare  Damascenum  sou  Ecclesiae 
Anglicana  Politia,  by  David  Calder- 
wood.  My  copy  is  a  very  large  4to. 
printed  at  Lugduni  Batavorum,1708, 
having  appended  Calderwood'sEpis- 
tolaa  Ecclesiae  cum  ejusdem  vindi- 
ciis,  written  against  Archbishop 
Spotswood  under  the  name  of  Hier- 
onymus  Philadelphus. 

An  Appeal  to  the  Parliament,  or  Zi- 
on's  Plea  against  the  Prelacie,  by 
Alexander  Leighton,  father  of  the 
archbishop.  Printed  in  1627, 4to.  344. 
This  is  the  work  for  which  he  suf- 
fered so  dreadfully,  and  is  to  be  found 
in  Harvard  College  Library. 

*  A  Fresh  Suit  against  Human  Cere- 
monies in  God's  Worship,  by  Ames. 
London,  1632,  4to. 

An  Assertion  for  True  and  Chris- 
tian Church  Policie,&c.  by  William 
Stoughton.  London,  1604.  Old  South 
Library,  Boston. 


*  To  present  a  complete  catalogue  of  Brit- 
ish works  on  this  subject  would  be  impossible, 
since  it  is  said  that  between  1640  and  1660,  no 
less  than  30,000  pamphlets  appeared  on  Church 
Government  alone. 

71 


*  Aaron's  Rod  Blossoming,  or  the  Di- 
vine Ordinance  of  Church  Govern- 
ment Vindicated,  &c.  1646,  by  Geo. 
Gillespie,  and  dedicated  to  the  West- 
minster Assembly,  of  which  he  was 
a  member  as  a  commissioner  from 
Scotland.  Many  other  publications, 
bearing  more  or  less  on  Presbyterian 
Church  Government,  proceeded 
from  his  pen  ;  among  others,  'An  As- 
sertion of  the  Discipline  and  Govern- 
ment of  the  Church  of  Scotland,' 
1641,  in  small  quarto ;  also,  which  I 
have,  '  Male  Audis,'  in  reply  to  Mr. 
Coleman.  London,  1646, 4to. 
*  The  '  Due  Right  of  Presbyteries,' 
athick4to.  1644,  by  Samuel  Ruther- 
ford, author  of  the  celebrated  Letters 
which  bear  his  name,  and  Professor 
of  Divinity  at  St.  Andrews  —  a  man 
of  eminent  scholarship  and  acute- 
ness  as  his  attainments  in  Rabbini- 
cal learning,  appearances  in  the 
Westminster  Assembly,  his  works, 
and  the  estimation  in  which  he  was 
held  by  foreign  contemporaries,  all 
show. 

*  A  Peaceable  Plea  for  Paul's  Pres- 
bytery. London,  1642,  4to.  by  the 
same  author. 

*  '  A  Dissuasive  from  the  Errors  of 
the  Time,  wherein  the  tenets  of  the 
principal  sects,  especially  of  the  In- 
dependents, are  drawn  together,  &c, 
and  examined  by  the  touchstone  of 
the  Holy  Scriptures,'  by  Robert  Bail- 
lie,  1645.  Bailie,  after  holding  more 
than  one  Professorship,  was  Princi- 
pal of  Glasgow  College.  This  work, 
when  assailed,  he  vindicated.  Be- 
sides this,  he  published  much  in  de- 
fence of  the  Church  of  Scotland 
against  the  Claims  of  Episcopacy, 
particularly  an  '  Answer  to  Bishops 
Maxwell  and  Bramhall.'  His  Let- 
ters and  Journals  are  also  very  valu- 
able as  a  history  of  the  Westminster 
Assembly,  2  volumes,  Svo.  1775. 
Baillie,  like  his  two  preceding  breth- 
ren, was  a  member  of  the  West- 
minster Assembly. 

The  Angel  of  the  Church  of  Ephe- 
sus,  no  Bishop,  &c,  by  Constant  Jes- 
sup,  a  member  of  the  Westminster 
Assembly.  London,  1644.  In  the 
Harvard  College  Library. 

*'A  Brief  Refutation  of  the  Errors 
of  Toleration,  Erastianism,  Inde- 
pendency, and  Separation,'  by  James 


562 


INDEX    IV. 


Fergusson,  of  Kilwinning,  written 
in  1652,  but  published  in  1692. 

James  Wood,  Professor  of  Theology 
at  St.  Andrews,  published  '  An  Ex- 
amination and  Refutation  of  Lock- 
yer's  Lecture  on  the  Visible  Church, 
in  defence  of  Presbytery,  and  against 
Independency,'  in  1654. 

*'Jus  Divinum  Regiminis  Ecclesi- 
astici,  or  Divine  Right  of  Church 
Government  Asserted  and  Evidenced 
by  the  Holy  Scriptures,'  &c.  &c,  by 
sundry  ministers  of  Christ  within 
the  city  of  London,  1654,  3d  ed.  A 
quarto,  and  a  work  of  admirable  and 
overpowering  argument. 

*Jus  Divinum  Ministerii  Evangelici, 
or  the  Divine  Right  of  the  Gospel 
Ministry,  by  the  Provincial  Assem- 
bly of  London.  1654,  4to.  This  is 
entitled  to  all  the  praise  due  to  the 
preceding. 

*  A  model  of  Church  Government,  by 
John  Drury,  one  of  the  Assembly  of 
Divines.     London,  1647,  4to. 

*A  Vindication  of  the  Judgment  of 
the  Reformed  Churches  concerning 
Ordination,  and  laying  on  of  hands. 
London,  1647,  by  Lazarus  Seaman, 
a  member  of  the  Assembly  of  Di- 
vines. 

*  Separation  Examined,  &c.  by  G. 
Firmin,  Minister  of  the  Gospel  in 
Shalford,  in  Essex.  London,  1652, 
4to. 

*A  Treatise  on  Schisms,  Parochial 
Congregations,  and  Imposition  of 
Hands,  by  the  same  author.  Lon- 
don, 1658. 

*  A  short  Treatise  describing  the  true 

Church  of  Christ,  by  Mr.  Richard 
Byfield,  a  member  of  the  Assembly 
of  Divines.     London,  1653, 4to. 

*  Vindicias  Vindiciarum,  &c.  London, 
1651,  by  D.  C. 

*  Allsop's  Melius  Inquirendum.  Lon- 
don, 1679,  3d  edition. 

*  Milton's  Reformation  in  England, 
touching  Church  Discipline;  of 
Prelatical  Episcopacy  ;  the  Reason 
of  Church  Government ;  Animad- 
versions on  the  Remonstrants'  De- 
fence against  Smectymnuus,  and  an 
Apology  for  Smectymnuus  ;  all  wor- 
thy of  his  fame. 

*Smectymnuus,  or  an  Humble  Remon- 
strance. London,  1641,  in  which 
the  original  of  Liturgy  and  Episco- 
pacy is  discussed,  the  parity  of  bish- 
ops and  presbyters  in  Scripture  de- 
monstrated, the  antiquity  of  ruling 


elders  in  the  church  vindicated, 
&c.  &c,  by  five  learned  and  orthodox 
Divines.  This  was  an  answer  to 
Bishop  Hall's  '  Defence  of  the 
Church  of  England.'  The  authors 
were,  Stephen  Marshall,  Edmund 
Calamy,  Thomas  Young,  Matthew 
Newcomen,  and  "Wm.  Spurston, 
whose  initials  make  up  the  title. 
*The  Utter  Routing  of  the  Whole 
Army  of  all  the  Independents  and 
Sectaries,  with  the  total  overthrow 
of  their  Hierarchy,  &c.  &c,  by  John 
Bastwick,  Captain  in  the  Presbyte- 
rian Army,  &c  London,  1646,  4to. 
pp.  662.  The  title-page  of  this  book 
is  extremely  curious.  The  contents 
are  able. 

*  The  Anatomy  of  the  Service-Book, 
by  Dwalphintramis,  4to.  pp.  102. 
Printed  in  the  year,  &c.  This  is  a 
very  rare  and  curious  pamphlet, 
published  by  a  number  of  Ministers 
in  Edinburgh,  when  Laud's  Service- 
Book  was  forced  upon  them. 

*  CXI.  Propositions  concerning  the 
Ministry  and  Government  of  the 
Church,  printed  by  order  of  the 
General  Assembly,  in  Edinburgh, 
1647. 

*The  Diocesan's  Tryall,  by  Mr.  M. 
Paul  Baynes.  London,  1621.  Small 
4to.  A  work  of  close  and  powerful 
reasoning  in  syllogisms. 

*  Bostwick's  Flagellum  Pontificis  et 
Episcoporum  Latialum. 

Parker  de  Politica  Ecclesiastica,  1621. 

*Lord  Brooke's  Discourse,  opening  the 
nature  of  that  Episcopacy  which  is 
exercised  in  England.  London, 
1642,  4to. 

Hickman's  Answer  to  Durell. 

Crofton's  Serious  Review  of  Presby- 
ters' reordination  by  Bishops.  Lon- 
don, 1660.  4to. 

Hickman's  Letter  to  a  Friend,  show- 
ing the  value  of  Presbyterian  ordi- 
nation.    London,  1661. 

A  Peaceable  Enquiry  into  that  Novel 
Controversie  about  Re-Ordination ; 
written  by  that  learned  and  Rever- 
end Mr.  J.  Humphrey.  London, 
1661.     Old  South  Library. 

Prynne's  Unbishoping  of  Timothy, 
and  that  the  power  of  Ordination, 
&c.  belongs,  jure  divino,  to  Presby- 
ters as  well  as  Bishops.  London, 
1636. 

*  Prynne  also  published  '  A  Catalogue 
of  such  Testimonies  in  all  ages  as 
plainly  evidence  Bishops  and  Pres- 


INDEX    IV. 


563 


byters  to  be  both  one,  equal  and 
the  same  in  jurisdiction,  office,  dig- 
nity, order,  and  degree,'  &c.  Lon- 
don, 1641,  4to. 

*  Prynne  also  published  '  The  Antipa- 
thie  of  the  English  Lordly  Prelacie 
both  to  Regal  Monarchie  and  Civil 
Unity,'  &c.  London,  1641.  2  vol- 
umes, 4to. 

*  I  have  also  a  copy  of  Prynne's  ear- 
lier work,  'The  Church  of  England's 
Antithesis  to  New  Arminianisme,' 
&c.     London,  1629.    4to.  pp.  140.* 

*  Baxter's  Five    Disputations  of  Ch. 

Government  and  Worship.  London, 
1659.     4to.  p.  492. 

*  Baxter's  True  and     Only    Way  of 

Concord  of  all  the  Christian  Church- 
es, &c.     London,  16S0. 

*  Baxter's  Treatise  of  Episcopacy, 
confuting  by  Scripture,  Reason, 
and  the  Church's  testimony  that 
sort  of  Diocesan  Churches,  Prelacy, 
and  Government,  which  castethout 
the  primitive  Church-species,  Epis- 
copacy, Ministry,  and  Discipline, 
&c.  London,  1681.  Small  folio. 
This  is  an  unanswered  and  unan- 
swerable work. 

*  Baxter's  '  English  Nonconformity 
truly  stated  and  argued.'  London, 
1689. 

*  Irenicum,  by  Bishop  Stillingfleet. 
London,  1662.  This  work  the  au- 
thor never  repudiated,  nor  can  the 
whole  hierachy  ever  answer  it. 

*A  Vindication  of  the  Presbyterial 
Government  and  Ministry,  by  the 
Ministers  and  Elders  met  in  Provin- 
cial Assembly,  November,  1649. 
Small  quarto.     London,  1650. 

The  Good  Old  Way  Defended,  &c, 
wherein  the  Divine  Right  of  the 
Government  of  the  Church  by  Pres- 
byters acting  in  parity,  is  asserted, 
&c,  by  Gilbert  Rule,  Principal  of 
the  College  of  Edinburgh,  1697. 
He  was  the  author  of  various  pam- 
phlets in  defence  of  Presbytery 
against  Episcopacy,  after  the  Res- 
toration. 

*  Nazianzeni  Querela  et  Votum  Jus- 
turn  ;  the  Fundamentals  of  the  Hi- 
erachy Examined  and  Disproved, 
by  William  Jameson,  Lecturer  of 
History  in  the  University  of  Glas- 
gow.    1697. 


*  I  have  also  his  '  Histrio-Mastix.  The 
Player's  Scourge,  or  Actor's  Tragedie,'  &c. 
London,  1633.    4to.  pp.  1006. 


*  Cyprianus  Isotimus,  or  J.  S.'s  (John 
Sage,  a  Scottish  Episcopal  Bishop,) 
Vindication  of  his  Principles  of  the 
Cyprianic  Age  Confuted,  &c.  by  the 
same  author.      1705. 

The  Sum  of  the  Episcopal  Contro- 
versy, as  it  is  Pleaded  Irom  the  Ho- 
ly Scriptures,  &c.  &c,  by  the  same. 
1713.     2d  ed. 

Jameson  must  have  been  a  remark 
able  man.  His  works  are  full  of 
learning,  and  yet  he  was  blind. 
This  is  beautifully  referred  to  by 
him,  in  the  conclusion  of  his  '  Na- 
zienzeni.'  Apologizing  for  the  de- 
fects of  his  book,  he  says,  '  Besides 
the  other  disadvantages  which  envi- 
ron me,  according  to  the  good  pleas- 
ure of  Him  who  doeth  all  things 
well,  I  have  from  the  very  womb 
labored  under  the  want  of  that  noble 
sense  of  seeing,  and  so  am  obliged 
to  read  with  the  eyes,  and  write 
with  the  hand  of  others.  Yet, 
though  I  be  deprived  of  the  sweet 
light  and  pleasure  of  beholding  the 
sun,  it  little  moves  me,  if  so  be  that 
I  may  see  the  infinitely  more  pre- 
cious light  of  the  most  glorious  and 
dear  Sun  of  Righteousness,  and  be 
illuminated  and  enlivened  with  that 
all-healing  virtue  which  is  in  his 
wings.' 

The  Hierarchal  Bishops'  Claim  to  a 
Divine  Right,  tried  at  the  Scripture 
Bar,  (in  answer  to  three  authors, 
two  of  them  Bishops,)  the  whole 
issuing  in  a  clear  discerning  of  the 
solid  grounds  of  Presbyterian  Gov- 
ernment, in  opposition  to  Prelacy, 
by  Principal  Forrester,  of  St.  An- 
drews. Quarto,  1669. 
*  A  Review  and  Consideration  of  two 
Pamphlets,  &c,  in  confutation  of 
Bishop  Sage  on  the  Cyprianic  Age. 
Edinburgh,  1706.  4to.  pp.  409. 
The  same  author,  at  an  earlier  day, 
16S4,  anonymously  published,  'Rec- 
tina  Instruendum,  containing  a  con- 
futation of  Episcopacy,  and  vindi- 
cation of  the  Truth,  owned  by  the 
true  Protestant  and  Presbyterian 
Church  of  Scotland.'  Currie,  in  his 
'  Vindication,'  states  that  Forrester 
was  the  author. 
The  Divine  Institution  of  Bishops 
having  Churches  consisting  of  many 
Congregations,  examined  by  Scrip- 
ture by  Alex.  Lauder,  Minister  of 
Mordington,  1711.  The  same  author 
published    'The    Jurisdiction    and 


564 


1ADEX    IV. 


Power  of  the  Ancient  Bishops  Con- 
sidered,' in  answer  to  Chillingworth, 
1707. 
♦Defence  of  the  Church  Government, 
Faith,  Worship,  and  Spirit  of  the 
Presbyterians,'  by  Anderson,  Minis- 
ter  of  Dumbarton,  and  afterwards 
first  Minister  of  the  Ramshorn  Ch., 
Glasgow,  1704. 

*  Causa  Episcopatus  Hierarchici  Lu- 
cifuga,  or  a  confutation  of  Sage's 
Vindication  of  the  Principles  of  the 
Cyprianic  Age.  This  is  a  very  able 
and  learned  work.  Edinburgh,  1706. 
4to.  page  274. 

*  A  Hind  Let  Loose,  or  a  Historical 
Representation  of  the  Testimonies 
of  the  Church  of  Scotland  in  all  of 
its  periods,  &c.  &c,  by  Alexander 
Shields,  Minister  in  St.  Andrews. 
Glasgow,  1797.    pp.  835. 

*  The  Remains  of  the  reverend  and 
learned  Mr.  John  Corbet,  including 
his  Treatise  on  the  Church.  Lon- 
don, 1764.    4to. 

*  Lord  King's  Inquiry  into  the  Con- 
stitution, Discipline,  Unity,  and 
Worship  of  the  Primitive  Church. 
London,  1691. 

*  A  Defence  of  Moderate  Non- Conform- 

ity, by  Edmund  Calamy,  in  3  vol- 
umes, Svo.     London,  1703,  &c. 

*  A  Plea  for  Scripture  Ordination,  or 
Ten  Arguments  from  Scripture  and 
Antiquity  proving  Ordination  by 
Presbyters  without  Bishops  to  be 
valid,  by  James  Owen,  Minister  of 
the  Gospel.  London,  1707.  This 
is  a  masterly  work. 

*  The  Common  Prayer  Book  not  Di- 
vine Service,  by  Vavasor  Powell. 
London,  1661.    4to. 

*  A  Vindication  of  the  Dissenters,  in 
Answer  to  Dr.  William  Nichols's 
Defence  of  the  Doctrine  and  Disci- 
pline of  the  Church  of  England,  by 
James  Peirce.  London,  1717.  This 
is  a  very  celebrated  work,  by  one  of 
the  best  reasoners,  and  is  still  a 
treasury  from  which  many  draw 
their  resources.  It  was  published 
also  in  Latin. 

*  Tracts  by  the  same  author,  including 
:  Presbyterian  Ordination  Proved 
Regular.'  London,  1716,  and  'A 
Defence  of  the  Dissenting  Ministry 
and  Presbyterian  Ordination.'  Lon. 
don,  1717,  8vo.  pp.  123. 

*The  History  of  Non- Conformity  as 
it  was  argued  and  stated  by  Com- 


missioners on  both  sides  in  1616, 
&c.     London,  1704. 

*  A  Vindication  of  the  Principles  and 

Character  of  the  Presbyterians  of 
Ireland,  by  William  Campbell,  D.  D., 
Minister  of  Armagh.  London,  17S7. 
3d  edition. 
*Dunlap's  Collection  of  Confessions 
of  Faith,  Catechisms,  &c.  of  public 
authority  in  the  Church  of  Scotland, 
2  volumes,  12mo.  thick.  Edinburgh, 
1719,  &c,  with  a  large  and  valuable 
Preface  on  the  ends  and  uses  of 
Creeds. 

*  Memoirs  of  the  Lives  and  Writings 

of  those  eminent  Divines  who  con- 
vened in  the  famous  Assembly  of 
Westminster,  by  James  Reid,  2 
volumes,  Svo.     Paisley,  1811. 

*  A  Dissent  from  the  Church  of  Eng- 
land fully  Justified,  by  Micaiah 
Towgood.     London,  1811.     12th  ed. 

*The  Case  of  the  Accommodation 
lately  proposed  by  the  Bishop  of 
Dumblane  to  the  Non- Conforming 
Ministers,  examined,  wherein  the 
ancient  episcopus  praeses  is  consid- 
ered, &c. 
*The  Original  Constitution  of  the 
Christian  Church,  wherein  the  Ex- 
tremes on  either  hand  are  stated  and 
examined ;  to  which  is  added,  an 
Appendix  containing  the  Rise  of 
the  Jure  Divino  Prelatists,  and  an 
answer  to  their  Arguments  by  Epis- 
copal Divines,  by  T.  A.  (Thomas 
Ayton.)  Minister  of  the  Gospel  at 
Alyth,  1730. 

*  A  Clear  Account  of  the  Ancient 
Episcopacy,  proving  it  to  have  been 
parochial,  and  therefore  inconsistent 
with  the  present  Model  of  Diocesan 
Episcopacy,  wherein  the  several 
Pretensions  of  the  Divine  Right  of 
the  latter  are  fully  examined,  by 
Joseph  Boyse,  of  Dublin. 

*  The  works  of  the  excellent  Willi- 
son,  of  Dundee,  may  here  be  refer- 
red to.  His  views  on  Episcopacy 
are  contained  in  his  Letterfrom  '  A 
Parochial  Bishop  to  a  Prelatical 
Gentleman;'  his  views  on  Inde- 
pendency in  his  controversy  with 
John  Glas. 

A  Humble  Attempt  to  exhibit  a  Scrip- 
tural View  of  the  Constitution,  Or- 
der, Discipline,  and  Fellowship  of 
the  Gospel  Church,  by  Archibald 
Hall.     London,  1795. 

A  Short  Vindication  of  Presbyterial 
Church  Government,  containing  a 


INDEX    IV. 


565 


Summary  View  of  the  Evidence  in 
support  of  it  from  the  Scripture, 
together  with  an  Examination  of 
the  Principal  Arguments  of  the  In- 
dependents against  it,  by  George 
Whytock,  of  the  Associate  Congre- 
gation, Dalkeith,  1799. 
Letters  on  the  Constitution,  Govern- 
ment, and  Discipline  of  the  Chris- 
tian Church,  by  John  Brown,  of 
Haddington.     1799. 

*  A  Vindication  of  the  Presbyterian 
Form  of  Church  Government,  as 
professed  in  the  Standards  of  the 
Church  of  Scotland,  in  reply  to  the 
Animadversions  of  Modern  and  An- 
cient Independents,  by  Rev.  John 
Brown,  of  Gartmore,  (afterwards 
oi  Langton.)  1805:  and  again,  Edin- 
burgh, 1812.     2d  ed. 

*  Presbyterian  Letters,  addressed  to 
Bishop  Skinner,  of  Aberdeen,  on 
his  Vindication  of  Primitive  Truths 
and  Order,  &c.  by  Dr.  Mitchell,  of 
Kennay.     1809. 

*  To  the  list  might  be  added  a  work  of 

the  great  Dr.  Owen,  entitled  'An 
Enquiry  into  the  Original  Nature, 
Institution,  Power,  Order,  and  Com- 
munion of  Evangelical  Churches, 
with  an  Answer  to  Dr.  Stillingfleet.' 
Quarto,  1681.  Though  not  strictly 
a  Presbyterian  book,  yet  it  is  a  pow- 
erful exposure  of  the  claims  of 
Prelacy,  and  is  written  with  a  free- 
dom and  ease  unusual  in  many  of 
the  works  of  Owen.  Contending 
as  he  did,  not  only  for  Parity  in  the 
Ministry,  but  for  Courts  of  Review, 
and  the  Divine  authority  of  the  of- 
fice of  Ruling  Elder,  he  may  justly 
be  reckoned  a  Presbyterian,  when 
writing  the  above  work,  which  he 
did  but  a  few  years  before  his  death. 
On  his  death-bed,  according  to  Wod- 
row,  he  declared  himself  a  Presby- 
terian. 

*  There  is  a  posthumous  work  by  Da- 
vid Clarkson,  published  in  London 
in  1CSS.  entitled  '  Primitive  Episco- 
pacy stated  and  cleared  from  the 
Holy  Scriptures,  and  Ancient  Re- 
cords.' 12mo.  pp.  235.  The  ob- 
ject is  to  show,  and  it  is  done  with 
great  learning,  that  the  primitive 
episcopacy  was  not  an  oversight  of 
a  number  of  pastors,  as  prelatists 
allege,  out  of  a  single  congregation, 
and  that  it  was  therefore  presbyte- 
rian. 

*  Mr.  Clarkson  also  left  '  A  Discourse 


concerning  Liturgies.'  London,  1680, 
which  displays  immense  learning. 
*A  Historical  Account  of  the  An- 
cient Culdees,  by  John  Jamieson, 
D.  D.  4to.  Edinburgh,  1811.  This 
is  a  very  learned  work,  and  a  very 
triumphant  vindication  of  the  Pres- 
byterianism  of  the  Culdees  against 
the  misrepresentations  of  Bishop 
Lloyd  and  others. 

*  Cook's  History  of  the  Church  of 
Scotland  from  the  Reformation  to 
the  Revolution,  3  volumes,  8vo. 
Edinburgh,  1815. 

*  Dr.   McCrie  on  the    Unity  of    the 

Church.     Edinburgh,  1821. 

*  Ibid,  Life  of  Knox,  2  volumes,  8vo. 

*  Ibid,  Life  of  Andrew  Melville,  2 
volumes,  8vo. 

*  Ibid,  Miscellaneous  "Writings,  thick 
Svo. 

*  Powell  on  the  Apostolical  Succes- 
sion.    1841. 

*  Hetherington's  History  of  the  Ch. 
of  Scotland,  thick  Svo.     1842.* 

*  Knox's  History  of  the  Reformation 
of  Religion  in  Scotland,  and  other 
works,  reprinted  at  Glasgow,  1832. 

*  Sketches  of  Scottish  Church  His- 
tory, by  the  Rev.  Thomas  McCrie. 
Edinburgh,  1841. 

*  Lectures  on  the  Headship  of  Christ. 

Glasgow,  1840. 
*Manual  of  Presbytery,  by  the  Rev. 
John  G.  Lorimer.    Edinburgh,  1842. 

*  The  Deaconship,  by  the  same  author. 

Edinburgh,  1842. 
*The    Eldership   of   the    Church  of 
Scotland,   by   the   same    author. — 
Glasgow,  1841. 

*  A  Historical  Sketch  of  the  Protes- 
tant Church  in  France,  by  the  same 
author.  Edinburgh,  1841.  Thick 
12mo. 

*  History  of  the  Waldenses,  by  the 
Rev.  Adam  Blair,  in  2  volumes, 
thick  Svo.  Edinburgh,  1832.  These 
volumes  contain  all  the  original 
documents. 

*  The    History   of  the     Presbyterian 

Church  in  Ireland,  by  the  Rev. 
James  Seaton  Reid,  D.  D.  in  3  vol- 
umes, Svo.  2  vols,  already  published. 

*  Presbyterianism  Defende'd  by  Minis- 
ters of  the  Synod  of  Ulster.  Glas- 
gow, 1839.     12mo. 

*  The  Plea  of  Presbytery  in  behalf  of 
the  Ordination,  Government,  Disci- 
pline, and  Worship  of  the  Christian 


*  We  pass  over  Wodrow,  Buchanan,  and 
Spaulding. 


566 


INDEX    IV. 


Church,  as  opposed  to  the  unscrip- 
tural  character  and  claims  of  Prela- 
cy, by  the  same  authors ;  thick  12mo. 
Glasgow,  1840.  A  second  edition 
has  been  issued  at  Belfast,  Ireland, 
which  is  enlarged.  This  we  have 
also.  We  rejoice  in  being  able  to 
commend  these  powerful  works  by 
men  with  whom  we  have  had  a  col- 
legiate acquaintance. 

*  Schism  as  opposed  to  the  Unity  of 
the  Church:  especially  in  the  Pres- 
ent Times,  by  the  Rev.  Dr.  Hoppus. 
London,  1S39,  2d  ed.  thick  12mo. 
page  592. 

*  On  Protestant  Nonconformity,  by 
Josiah  Conder,  2  volumes,  8vo. 
London, 1818. 

*  Congregationalism,  or  the  Polity  of 
Independent  Churches,  by  Robert 
Vaughan,  D.  D.     1842. 

*  The  Protestant  Dissenters'  Cate- 
chism, by  the  Rev.  Samuel  Palmer. 
London,  1S39,  the  21st  edition. 

*  Religion  and  Education  in  America, 
by  John  Dunmore  Lang,  D.  D. — 
London, 1840. 

*  Sketch  of  the  History  and  Principles 
of  the  Presbyterian  Church  in  Eng- 
land.    London,  1840. 

*  An  Apology  for  the  Church  of 
Scotland,  by  the  Rev.  J.  dimming. 
London,  1S37* 

To  these  might  be  added,  though  writ- 
ten by  Episcopalians, — 

*  The  Kingdom  of  Christ  Delineated, 
by  Archbishop  Whately.  London, 
1842. 

*  The  Catholic  Character  of  Christi- 
anity as  recognised  by  the  Reformed 
Church,  by  Frederick  Nolan,  L.L.D. 
London, 1S39. 

*  The  Presbyterian  Review.  Edin- 
burgh. Many  valuable  articles,  on 
various  points  connected  with  Pres- 
bytery, will  be  found  ably  handled 
in  this  work. 

*The  Life  and  Times  of  Alexander 
Henderson,  by  Dr.  Aiton,  contains, 
beside  much  else  that  is  important, 
all  the  papers  presented  by  Hen- 
derson to  King  Charles. 

*  A  very  clear  view  of  the  Contro- 
versy will  also  be  found  in  Hill's 
Lectures  on  Divinity.  Volume  3d, 
English  edition. 

*  Also  in  Dick's  Theology.  Volume 
4th,  English  edition. 


*  A  host  of  able  pamphlets  have  been  lately 
issued  in  Scotland,  many  of  which  we  pos- 
sess, but  it  is  unnecessary  to  enumerate  them. 


*  The  History  of  Protestant  Noncon- 
formity in  England,  by  Thomas 
Price,  D.  D.  2  volumes,  8vo.  Lon- 
don, 1S38,  &c. 

*Dr.    Cook's  View   of    Christianity. 

Volume  iii.  chap.  1. 
*A  Cloud  of  Witnesses  for  the  Royal 

Prerogatives  of  Jesus    Christ,  &c. 

Aberdeen,  1778. 

*  Faithful  Contendings  Displayed,  be- 
ing an  Historical  Account,  &c.  &c, 
by  Michael  Shields,  1780. 

*  Testimony-bearing  Exemplified,  &c, 
1791,  including  Gillespie  sgainst 
Association  with  Malignants.  The 
Informatory  Vindication,  &c. 

*  Napthali,  or  the  Wrestlings   of  the 

Church  of  Scotland  for  the  King- 
dom of  Christ,  &c,  1780. 

*The  Scots'  Worthies,  by  Mc Gavin, 
2  volumes.  Svo.     1831. 

*Jus  Populi  Vindicatum,  by  Mr. 
James  Stewart. 

*The  Explanation  and  Application 
of  the  Solemn  League  and  Cove- 
nant, &c  ,  by  the  Rev.  Richard  Ward, 
member  of  the  Assembly,  reprinted 
1737. 

*View  of  the  Constitution  of  the 
Church  of  Scotland,  by  George 
Hill,  D.  D.,  1803,  3d  edition  just 
issued. 

*  Hill's  Practice  in  the  several  Judica- 
tories of  the  Church  of  Scotland, 
edition  4th,  1840. 

*  Stewart's  Collections  and  Observa- 
tions Methodized,  concerning  the 
worship,  &c.  of  the  Church  of  Scot- 
land.    1709. 

*  Compendium  of  the  Laws  of  the 
Church  of  Scotland  and  of  the  Acts 
of  the  Assembly,  with  a  Supplement 
by  Alexander  Peterkin,  3  volumes, 
12mo. 

*  Annals    of   the     Assembly  of   the 

Church  of  Scotland  from   1739  to 
1766.     2  volumes,  1838. 
*Acts   of  the  Assembly  from  1638  to 
1649.     Printed  in  1682. 

*  The  Books  of  Discipline  and  of 
Common  Order.     1836. 

*  The  Book  of  the  Universal  Kirk  of 

Scotland,  1839,  Svo. 

*  Styles  and  Procedure  of  the  Church 

Courts  in  Scotland,  1838,  Svo. 

*  Catechism  of  the  History  of  the 
Church  of  Scotland,  by  Rev.  Ben- 
jamin Laing.     1842. 

*  Exposition  of  the  Principles  of  the 

Church  of  Scotland  in  regard  to 
Admission  of  Pastors.     1842. 


INDEX    IV. 


567 


*   3. 


Works    on    Prcsbyterianism,    by 
American  Authors. 


In  the  Dudleian  Lectures  will  be 
found  many  valuable  Discourses 
on  the  Safety  and  Validity  of  Pres- 
byterian Ordination,  viz : 

Mr.  Appleton's  Lecture,  delivered  in 
the  year  1758. 

Dr.  Chauncey's  Lecture,  delivered  in 
the  year  1762. 

Rev.  Ebenezer  Pemberton's  Lecture, 
delivered  in  the  year  1776. 

Rev.  Amos  Adams's  (of  Koxbury,) 
Lecture,  delivered  in  the  year  1770. 

Rev.  Mr.  Webster's  Lecture,  delivered 
in  the  year  1774. 

Rev.  John  Tucker's,  (Pastor  of  First 
Church  in  Newbury,)  Lecture,  de- 
livered in  the  year  1778. 

Rev.  Samuel  West's,  (of  Dartmouth.) 
Lecture,  delivered  in  the  year  17S2. 

Rev.  William  Symmes's,  (of  Andover,) 
Lecture,  delivered  in  the  year  1786. 

Rev.  Jeremy  Belknap's  Lecture,  deliv- 
ered in  the  year  1790. 

Rev.  Zabdiel  Adams's  Lecture,  deliv- 
ered in  the  year  1794. 

Rev.  Samuel  Haven,  D.  D.,  Lecture, 
delivered  in  the  year  1798. 

Rev.  David  Osgood,  D.  D.,  Lecture, 
delivered  in  the  year  1802. 

Rev.  Joseph  Eckley,  D.  D.,  Lecture, 
delivered  in  the  year  1806. 

Rev.  Abel  Holmes,  D.  D.,  Lecture, de- 
livered in  the  year  1810. 

Rev.  Hezekiah  Packard's  Lecture,  de- 
livered in  the  year  1814. 

Rev.  Abiel  Abbot's  Lecture,  delivered 
in  the  year  ISIS. 

Rev.  Joseph  Tuckerman's  Lecture,  de- 
livered in  the  year  1822. 

Rev.  Dr.  Parker's  Lecture,  delivered 
in  the  year  1826. 

*  Rev.  William  Allen,  D.  D.,  Lecture, 
delivered  in  the  year  1830. 

*  Rev.  Adam  Lamson's  Lecture,  deliv- 
ered in  the  year  1  S3  I. 

*  Rev.  George  Noyes's  Lecture,  deliv- 
ered in  the  year  1S3S. 

The  Ruling  and  Ordaining  Power  of 
Congregational  Bishops  or  Presby- 
ters Defended,  by  Mr.  Foxcroft. — 
Boston,  1724.  In  Harvard  College 
Library. 

A  Defence  of  Presbyterian  Ordination, 
by  Jonathan  Dickinson,  of  Eliza- 
bethtown,  N.  J.  Boston,  1724.— 
In  do. 

A  Complete  View  of  Episcopacy,  as 
exhibited  in  the  Fathers  until  the 
close  of  the  second  century,  by  Dr. 


Chauncey.     pp.  474.     Boston,  1771. 

The  Scripture  Bishop  Vindicated,  or 
the  Divine  Right  of  Presbyterian 
Ordination  and  (Government,  by 
Eleutherus  V.  D.  M.  Boston,  1733. 
In  Old  South  Library. 

Vindiciae  Minister!)  Evangelici,  by 
John  Collings,  M.  A.,  a  Preacher  of 
God's  Word  in  Norwich.  London, 
1651.     4to.     In  Old  South  Library 

*  The    Divine  Right  of  Presbyterian 

Ordination  Asserted, and  the  Minis- 
terial Authority  Claimed  and  Exer- 
cised by  the  Churches  of  New  Eng- 
land, Vindicated  and  Proved,  by 
Noah  Welles.  Pastor  of  the  Church 
at  Stamford.  New  York.  1763. 
*A  Vindication  of  the  Validity  and 
Divine  Right  of  Presbyterian  Ordi- 
nation, by  the  same  author.  New 
Haven,  1767.  12mo.  p.  159.  These 
are  both  exceedingly  well  conducted 
arguments. 

*  A  Collection  of  Essays  on  the  sub- 
ject of  Episcopacy,  which  appeared 
originally  in  the  Albany  Sentinel. 
New  York,  1806. 

*  Essay  on  Episcopacy,  being  a  Re- 
view of  the  preceding  work,  by 
John  Mason,  D.  D.,  and  now  pub- 
lished in  his  Works,  volume  3. 

*  Letters  concerning  the  Constitution 
and  Order  of  the  Christian  Minis- 
try, addressed  to  the  Members  of 
the  Presbyterian  Churches  in  the 
City  of  New  York.  &c.  &c.,  by  Dr. 
Miller.  Larue  octavo,  2d  edition. 
Philadelphia,  lMii). 

*  The  Warrant,  Nature,  and  Duties  of 
the  ofliceof  the  Ruling  Elder  in  the 
Presbyterian  Church,  by  the  same 
author.  This  work  was  republished 
in  Glasgowin  1835,  with  an  Intro- 
ductory Essay  by  the  Rev.  William 
Lindsay,  of  which  I  have  a  copy. 

*  Presbyterian  ism  the  Truly  Primitive 
and  Apostolical  Constitution  of  the 
Church  of  Christ,  by  the  same 
author.  This  also  has  been  repub- 
lished in  Scotland,  by  Mr.  Lorimer, 
and  in  Belfast,  Ireland. 

*  Letters  to  Presbyterians,  by  the  same 

author.     Philadelphia,  I B  ;  ; 

*  The      Utility     and     Importance    of 

Creeds  and  Confessions,  by  the  same 
author.     1839. 

*  The  Primitive  and  Apostolical  Or- 
der of  the  Church  of  Christ  Vin- 
dicated, by  the  same  author.     1840. 

*  The  Primitive  Government  of  Chris- 

tian Churches  and  Liturgical   Con- 
siderations, by    James    P.    Wilson, 


568 


INDEX    IV. 


D.  D.  Philadelphia,  1833.  12mo. 
pp.  572.  This  is  a  work  of  very- 
great  and  original  research. 

Illustrations  of  the  Character  and 
Conduct  of  the  Presbyterian  Church 
in  Virginia,  by  John  Holt  Rice, 
D.D.     Richmond,  1816. 

Review  of  Bishop  Ravenscrofl's  Vin- 
dication and  Defence,  by  the  same 
author,  in  the  Evangelical  Maga- 
zine, volumes  9  and  10. 

Essays  on  the  Government  and  Dis- 
cipline of  the  Presbyterian  Church, 
bv  the  same  author,  in  the  same. 

*  Historical  and  Philosophical  Consid- 
erations on  Religion,  by  the  same 
author.     Richmond,  1822. 

*  High- Church  Principles  opposed  to 
the  Genius  of  our'Republican  Insti- 
tutions, by  the  same  author.  See 
its  substance  given  in  Lectures  on 
the  Apostolical  Succession,  p.  335, 
&c. 

*  The  Scriptural  Argument  for  Epis- 
copacy Examined,  by  the  Rev.  Al- 
bert Barnes.     1835. 

*  The  Apostolic  Church,  by  the  same 
author.     1843. 

*  An  Ecclesiastical  Catechism,  by 
Alexander  McLeod,  D.  D. 

*  The    Constitutional  History  of  the 

Presbyterian  Church  in  the  United 
States  of  America,  by  Charles 
Hodge,  D.  D.     2  volumes,  8vo. 

*  Spence's  Letters  on  the  Early  His- 
tory of  the  Presbyterian  Church  in 
America.     Philadelphia,  1S38. 

*  The  Claims  of  '  Episcopal  Bishops ' 
Examined,  in  a  series  of  Letters,  by 


Rev.  George  Duffield.     New  York, 
1842.     Second  edition. 

*  An  Original  Church  of  Christ,  or  a 
Scriptural  Vindication  of  the  Or- 
ders and  Powers  of  the  Ministry  of 
the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  by 
Nathan  Bangs,  D.  D.  New  York, 
1837.     Second  edition. 

*  A  History  of  the  Westminster  As- 
sembly of  Divines,  compiled  for  the 
Board  of  Publication,  by  A.  Alex- 
ander. D.  D.     Philadelphia,  1841. 

*  The  Biblical  Repertory  will  be  found 
an  invaluable  repository  of  valuable 
articles  on  Presbyterian  Doctrine, 
Order,  and  Polity.  This  Review 
should  be  in  the  hands  of  every 
bishop,  elder,  and  intelligent  lay- 
men, connected  with  the  presbyte- 
rian  church. 

The  author  may  now  be  permitted  to 
add  his  own  contributions  to  the 
resources  of  the  student,  in  examin- 
ing the  subject : 

The  Prelatical  Doctrine  of  Apostoli- 
cal Succession  Examined,  and  the 
Protestant  Ministry  defended  against 
the  exclusive  assumptions  of  Pope- 
ry and  High  Churchism. 

An  Ecclesiastical  Catechism  of  the 
Presbyterian  Church,  adapted  to 
Bible  Classes,  Sabbath  Schools,  and 
Private  Families.     Third  edition. 

Ecclesiastical  Republicanism,  or  The 
Republicanism  and  Liberality  of 
Presbytery,  in  contrast  with  Prel- 
acy and  Popery.     12mo. 

Tracts  on  Presbyterianism.  1  vol- 
ume, 12mo. 


FINIS 


THE 

PRELATICAL  DOCTRINE 

OF 

APOSTOLICAL    SUCCESSION 

EXAMINED, 

AND     THE     PROTESTANT     MINISTRY    DEFENDED     AGAINST    THE 
ASSUMPTIONS     OF     POPERY    AND    HIGH     CHURCHISM, 

la  a  Series  of  Lectures. 

BY    THOMAS    SMYTH, 

Pastor  of  tltc  Second  Presbyterian  Church,  Charleston,  S.  C. 


CRITICAL     NOTICES. 


Overture  adopted  by  the  Synod  of  S.  Carolina  and  Geo.  at  its  session  in  1841. 

That  the  publication  of  works  intended  to  advocate  the  distinctive  order  and 
polity  of  our  church  should  be  encouraged,  and  their  circulation  among  our 
people  rendered  as  general  as  possible  ;  and  it  having  conn:  to  the  knowledge  of 
this  Synod,  that  one  of  their  number,  the  Rev.  Thomas  Smyth,  of  Charleston, 
has  recently  given  to  the  Church,  among  other  valuable  publications,  '  An  Eccle- 
siastical Catechism  of  the  Presbyterian' Church,  lor  the  use  of  Families,  Bible 
,  and  Private  Members,'— and  a  series  of  lectures  on  'The  Prelatical 
Doctrine  of  Apostolical  Succession  Examined,  and  the  Protestant  Ministry 
Defended  against  the  Assumptions  of  Popery  and  High-Churchism.'  Therefore, 
Resolved,  That  the  Synod  of  South  Carolina  and  Georgia  regard  with  pleasure 
and  approbation  these  publications,  as  containing  an  able  defence  of  the  divine 
authority  ol  the  Protestant  Ministry,  and  a  full  and  satisfactory  exposition  of  the 
order  and  government  of  our  Chunh;  and  as  demanded  by  the  present  state  of 
the  controversy  on  these  BUbjects.  And  the  Synod  does,  therefore,  cordially 
recommend  the  said  publications  to  all  our  Ministers,  Elders,  and  private  mem- 
bers, as  works  of  high  value,  and  calculated  to  advance  the  intelligence  of  our 
Church,  on  our  distinctive  peculiarities  and  doctrines. 

Extract  from  a  review  of  the  work  in  the  Biblical  Repertory,  for  Jan'y>  1841 . 

'  This  book  does  no  small  credit  to  the  industry  and  talent  of  the  author.  The 
importance  of  his  subject,  the  correctness  of  his  views,  and  the  abundance  of 
materials  which  he  seems  to  have  had  at  his  command,  entitle  his  performance  to 
the  most  respectful  notice.  The  author's  mind  is  not  only  strong  but  lively,  and 
ok  exhibits  trace-  of  both  qualities.  The  natural,  (and  may  we  not  say.) 
national,  vivacity  with  which  he  seizes  on  his  topics  and  discusses  them, 
enlivens  in  a  very  satisfactory  degree  even  those  parts  of  the  subject  which 
mull'  otherwise  have  proved  most  irksome  and  fatiguing.  In  a  u 
(which  by  the  way  is  elegantly  printed.)  may  be  freely  commended  to  the  favor- 
able notice  of  the  public;  and  we  doubt  not  that  wherever  it  is  read  it  will  be 
useful,  in  apprising  those  who  read  it  what  the  high  church  doctrine  really  is,  and 
on  what  grounds  it  may  be  most  triumphantly  and  easily  refuted.' 


2  CRITICAL     NOTICES. 

From  the  Southern  Christian  Advocate. 

'  We  have  the  pleasure  to  announce  the  probable  publication  of  these  Lec- 
tures at  no  distant  day.  As  far  as  opportunity  has  allowed  it,  we  have  attended 
Mr.  Smyth's  course,  and  been  both  pleased  and  edified.  Pleased,  in  witnessing 
a  fine  combination  of  candor,  kindness,  and  strength,  in  the  discussion  of  difficult 
and  soul-rousing  questions.  Edified,  in  listening  to  a  vigorous  discussion  of 
important  first  principles,  where  the  lecturer  was  master  of  his  thesis,  and 
backed  his  reasoning  by  extensive  authority  of  the  highest  value  in  this  contro- 
versy. This  volume,  in  which  the  Prelatic  Doctrine  of  Apostolical  Succession 
is  considered,  will  be  highly  valuable  to  the  theological  student.' 

From  the  Christian  Intelligencer,  of  the  Reformed  Dutch  Church,  N,  Y^ 

'  This  is  an  exceedingly  neat  volume  of  five  hundred  and  sixty-eight  pages, 
beautiful  in  its  mechanical  execution,  and  upon  a  subject  of  grave  and  exciting 
importance.  The  work  is  seasonable,  and  from  the  cursory  examination  which 
we  have  as  vet  been  able  to  give  to  it,  we  believe  that  it  will  prove  to  be  exceed- 
ingly valuable.  The  work  before  us,  at  the  present  crisis,  is  seasonable  and 
necessary.  It  is  more  ample  in  its  discussion  than  any  that  preceded  it.  It  is 
the  result  of  much  and  patient  research,  and  will  be  found  to  reflect  credit  alike 
upon  the  talents  and  learning,  and  we  will  add  also,  the  temper  of  the  author. 
He  has  rendered  the  Protestant  community  a  debtor.  We  desire  that  the  work 
may  have  the  widest  circulation,  and  receive  the  careful  perusal  both  of  Episco- 
palians and  Christians  of  every  other  name.' 

From  the  Christian  Advocate  and  Journal,  of  the  Methodist  Church,  N.  Y. 

'  This  is  a  large  octavo  volume.  The  author  makes  thorough  work  of  his 
subject,  examining  the  pretensions  of  Prelacy  with  care  and  candor,  and  expos- 
ing their  fallacy  with  unanswerable  force  and  perspicutity.  He  gives  the  claims 
which  are  set  up  by  Popery  and  High-Churchmen  in  their  own  language,  and 
refutes  them  by  arguments  drawn  from  reason,  church  history,  and  Scripture. 
The  Christian  world  seems  to  be  waked  up  anew  to  the  high  and  exclusive 
claims  of  Prelacy  by  the  astounding  assumptions  of  the  Oxford  divines  ;  and 
we  admit  that  such  a  book  as  that  before  us  seems  to  be  called  for  by  the  occa- 
sion, and  will  no  doubt  be  read  with  great  interest.' 

From  the  New  York  Evangelist. 

'  A  large  and  elegant  octavo  volume,  on  a  most  important  topic.  Its  object  is 
the  examination  of  the  claims  of  the  Popish  hierarchy,  and  of  that  portion  of  the 
clergy  and  laity  of  the  Episcopal  Church  which  sympathizes  with  them,  to  the 
exclusive  right  to  the  functions  and  privileges  of  the  Christian  ministry  and 
Church.  These  claims,  always  unscriptural,  have  of  late  assumed  new  arro- 
gance and  vigor,  by  the  brief  currency  of  the  Oxford  publications,  and  the 
greatly  quickened  zeal  of  the  Papacy  among  us.  The  time  has  certainly  arrived 
when  their  exclusive  notions  should  be  subjected  to  the  searching  test  of  reason 
and  scripture.  If  there  are  those  among  us  who  will  vauntingly  assume  that  theirs 
is  the  only,  the  valid  ministry,  that  with  them  are  to  be  found  the  only  author- 
ized ordinances  of  salvation,  that  there  is  no  safety  but  within  the  pale  of  their 
own  denomination  ;  let  their  pretensions  be  sifted,  and  the  emptiness  of  their 
claims  be  exposed  by  the  clear  light  of  truth.  That  such  a  contest  with  the 
principle  of  Prelacy  is  yet  to  be  waged,  and  that  it  is  to  be  abandoned,  there  can 
be  no  doubt.  We  hail  every  effort  to  throw  light  upon  the  subject.  Mr.  Smyth 
has  entered  vigorously  upon  the  field  of  controversy,  and  has  spared  neither 
pains  or  strength  to  do  it  justice.  He  has  gone  over  the  whole  ground  in  a  more 
extended  manner  than  any  writer  before  him  in  this  country,  and  in  an  able 
manner.' 

From  The  Presbyterian. 

'  The  volume  before  us  contains  a  very  full  and  minute  discussion  of  the  doc- 
trine indicated  in  its  title,  and  is  to  be  followed  by  another  which  will  vindicate 
the  claims  of  Presbyterianism.    The  necessity  of  the  work  arises  from  the 


CRITICAL     NOTICES.  3 

increasing  boldness  and  arrogance  with  which  the  Episcopal  Church  obtrudes 
its  claims  as  the  only  true  church,  with  the  only  valid  ordinances,  and  the  only 
divinely  constituted  ministry.  As  to  the  manner  in  which  he  has  accomplished 
his  task,  we  are  disposed  to  judge  very  favorably,  from  the  necessarily  partial 
manner  in  which  we  have  been  ahle  to  examine  his  work.  He  has  acquired  a 
clear  and  distinct  view  of  the  question  discussed  in  all  its  bearings,  and  to  each 
specific  point  he  has  brought  a  mind  stored  with  the  fruits  of  extensive  reading. 
AVe  have  admired  the  extent  of  his  research,  and  his  diligence  in  learning  all 
that  had  been  said  by  preceding  writers  which  could  throw  light  on  the  discus- 
sion ;  and  indeed  we  have  rather  regarded  him  as  too  redundant  in  his  authorities  ; 
a  fault,  by  the  way,  not  often  committed  in  this  age  of  jumping  at  conclusions. 
Mr.  Smyth  states  the  question  of  Apostolic  succession,  so  much  in  the  mouth  of 
modern  Episcopalians,  and  he  views  it  in  all  possible  lights,  weighs  it  in  just 
balances,  and  pronounces  it  wanting.  He  not  only  proves  that  the  assumption 
is  unscriptural  and  unreasonable,  but  he  traces  the  boasted  succession,  and 
shows  its  broken  links,  and  finds  after  all  the  flourish  of  trumpets,  that  prelatists 
are  glorying  in  a  mere  shadow.  He  carries  the  war,  moreover,  into  the  enemy's 
camp,  and  he  carries  oft"  many  trophies.  Mr.  Smyth  is  undoubtedly  an  able 
controversialist,  and  prelatists  will  find  him  well  armed  at  all  points,  if  they  are 
disposed  to  attack.' 

From  the  Southern  Christian  Advocate. 

'  The  work  before  us  is,  we  believe,  the  first  distinct  treatise  published  in  this 
country  on  the  subject  of  the  Apostolical  Succession,  and  in  opposition  to  its 
arrogant  assumptions.  A  very  ably  argued  and  well  written  work  has  been 
recently  given  to  the  English  public,  entitled  'An  Essay  on  Apostolical  Succes- 
sion,' by  the  Rev.  Thomas  Powell,  a  Wesleyan  minister,  of  which  Mr.  Smyth 
makes  honorable  mention.  We  consider,  therefore,  the  publication  of  these 
Lectures  as  a  valuable  contribution  to  the  religious  literature  of  the  time, 
demanded  withal  by  the  claims  of  that  portion  of  our  common  Christianity, 
which  is  so  unfortunate  as  to  have  no  participation  in  the  anointing  oil  of  pre- 
latical  consecration,  and  which  lies  beyond  the  range  of  apostolico-succession- 
eovcnant  blessing.  Mr.  Smyth  has  executed  his  task  in  a  candid,  kind,  and 
courteous  spirit,  while  he  has  subjected  the  theory  of  Apostolical  Succession  to 
the  scrutiny  of  a  thorough,  extensive,  and  fearless  examination.  Innumerable 
authorities  are  cited,  and  a  copious  index  concludes  the  volume,  which  embraces 
upwards  of  five  hundred  and  sixty-nine  pages,  and  is  gotten  up  in  the  finest 
finish  of  the  typographical  art.' 

From  the  Charleston  Observer. 

1  Notice  was  taken  of  these  Lectures  while  in  course  of  delivery.  They  are 
now  published,  and  with  the  notes,  which  contain  as  much  reading  as  the  text, 
make  a  large  volume  of  five  hundred  and  sixty-eight  pages.  The  typographical 
execution  is  in  the  best  modern  style,  from  the  press  of  Crocker  and  Brewster, 
Boston.  Our  design,  at  present,  is  simply  to  apprise  our  readers  that  the  work 
is  published,  intending  at  our  leisure  to  give  it  a  more  formal  notice.  As  the 
basis  of  the  opinion  controverted,  rests  upon  what  is  familiarly  known  as  the 
Apostolical  Succession,  it  is  here  that  the  author  has  exhibited  his  chief  strength. 
And  were  we  to  say  that  he  has  made  good  his  position,  it  might  be  regarded  as 
only  a  judgment  expressed  in  accordance  with  previously  existing  prejudices  in 
its  favor.  But  we  hope,  on  the  other  hand,  that  none  will  undertake  to  condemn 
it  unread.  The  advocates  of  High-Churchism,  whether  Roman  or  Anglican, 
are  chiefly  concerned  in  the  discussion,  and  possibly  they  may  find  in  the  work 
something  that  will  moderate  their  exclusive  zeal,  and  lead  them  to  the  exercise 
of  more  charity  for  the  opinions  of  those  from  whom  they  differ.' 

From  The  Presbyterian. 

'  Mr.  Editor:  —  I  ask  room  in  your  paper  to  commend  this  work  to  the  attention 
of  the  ministers  and  intelligent  laymen  of  our  Church.  If  there  be  any  among 
them  who  doubt  whether  a  work  of  this  sort  was  called  for,  their  doubts  -will 
not  survive  the  reading  of  the  first  Lecture,  entitled  'The  Necessity  for  an  Exam- 


4  CRITICAL     NOTICES. 

ination  into  the  Prelatical  Doctrine  of  Apostolical  Succession.'  The  discussion, 
therefore,  in  which  Mr.  Smyth  has  embarked,  was  provoked  by  the  growing 
disposition  among  High-Church  Episcopalians,  to  unchurch  the  Presbyterian 
body,  and  challenge  exclusive  salvation  to  the  members  of  churches  under 
Diocesan  Bishops.  His  work  is  not  an  attack,  but  a  defence  —  a  defence  con- 
ducted with  great  ability  and  skill.  I  venture  to  commend  it  to  the  notice  of 
yuur  readers,  because  I  am  satisfied  they  will  be  instructed  and  profited  by  the 
perusal  of  it.  The  lectures  are  evidently  the  result  of  much  study,  and  very 
extensive  research.  No  single  volume  I  have  seen,  contains  such  a  mass  of 
authorities  and  seasonable  testimonies,  on  the  Prelatical  controversy  as  this 
work.  It  is  equally  creditable  to  the  author's  talents  and  industry,  that  he  should 
have  found  time  to  prepare,  in  the  midst  of  his  pastoral  duties,  an  octavo  of 
five  hundred  and  fifty  pages,  on  a  subject  requiring  so  much  study,  and  involv- 
ing an  examination  of  several  hundred  distinct  works  on  either  side  of  the  con- 
troversy. Such  labors  ought  not  to  go  unrequited  ;  but  his  brethren  will  be  ren- 
dering themselves  and  the  cause  of  truth  a  substantial  service,  by  placing  it  in 
their  libraries  :  and  it  is  for  this  reason  that  their  attention  is  invited  to  it  by  one 
who  has  no  other  concern  in  it  than  that  which  is  common  to  every  Presbyterian.' 

From  the  New  York  Observer. 

'  A  formidable  volume  this  is  in  appearance,  and  on  this  very  account  will 
repel  many  who  might  otherwise  be  attracted  to  examine  its  pages.  In  a  course 
of  twenty-one  lectures  the  author  has,  with  great  industry  and  "research,  and  no 
mean  ability  as  a  controversialist,  examined  the  question  before  him,  and  pre- 
sented, in  the  compass  of  a  single  book,  a  mass  of  testimony  that  must  be  of 
value  to  those  whose  time  and  means  will  not  allow  them  to  pursue  the  investi- 
gation through  all  the  original  sources,  which  Mr  Smyth  has  so  perseveringly 
explored.' 

From  the  Watchman  of  the  South. 

'  We  offer  a  few  general  remarks  at  present,  intending  at  an  early  day  to 
notice  them,  or  at  least  that  last  named,  far  more  fully  than  we  usually  do.  One 
thing  must  strike  every  one  who  knows  the  history  of  the  author  of  these  works 
We  refer  to  his  industry.  Without  very  firm  bodily  health,  and  having  a  very 
laborious  pastoral  charge,  he  still  economizes  time  sufficient  to  bring  out,  through 
the  press,  from  time  to  time,  important  contributions  to  the  cause  he  loves.  This 
is  as  it  should  be.  Mr.  Smyth  is,  of  course,  a.grouring  minister.  His  influence 
and  usefulness  are  constantly  extending.  It  is  also  obvious  to  any  one  who 
reads  Mr.  Smyth's  works,  that  he  has,  or  has  the  use  of  a  very  good  library,  and 
is  a  man  of  no  mean  learning.  His  works  show  the  importance  of  ministers' 
salaries  being  such  as  to  enable  them  to  'give  themselves  to  reading.'  But  Mr. 
Smyth  is  not  a  mere  reader.  He  arranges  and  uses  what  he  reads.  His  char- 
acter as  a  writer  rises  every  year.  Mr.  Smyth  is  also  ardently  attached  to  Pres- 
byterianism.     Further  remarks  may  be  expected  in  a  week  or  two.' 

From  the  Charleston  Courier. 

'  We  would  call  the  attention  of  all  those  who  profess  any  regard  for  the 
literary  character  of  our  southern  community,  to  a  work  recently  published  by 
our  esteemed  fellow-townsman,  the  Rev.  Thomas  Smyth,  entitled  '  Lectures  on 
the  Apostolical  Succession.'  "Whatever  may  be  the  opinion  of  the  intelligent 
reader  on  the  subjects  of  which  it  treats,  he  will  acknowledge  it  to  be  a  sinking 
example  of  extensive  and  profound  research,  and  most  diligent  investigation. 
The  author  appears  to  have  enjoyed  some  remarkable  advantages  in  the  prose- 
cution of  his  inquiries.  Possessing,  as  he  does,  one  of  the  best  private  libraries  in 
this  country — probably  the  most  complete  in  the  theological  department — he  has 
had  access  to  an  immense  mass  of  authorities,  not  usually  within  the  reach  of 
the  American  scholar,  and  his  abundant  and  voluminous  references  make  his 
book  an  absolute  index  for  the  use  of  future  writers.  His  industry,  indeed,  has 
left  but  scanty  gleanings,  as  it  would  appear,  for  any  who  may  desire  to  follow 
him  in  this  discussion.  His  style  is  easy  and  animated,  and  the  interest  of  the 
reader  is  kept  up,  without  flagging,  through  an  octavo  of  nearly  six  hundred 


CRITICAL     NOTICES.  O 

pages.  We  hope  the  success  of  ihis  highly  creditable  effort  may  be  such  as  to 
induce  the  learned  and  reverend  author  to  complete  his  tusk,  by  giving  promptly 
to  the  public  the  second  volume  of  his  course,  promised  in  his  prelacc.' 

From  the  Christian  Observer. 

1  From  a  cursory  examination  of  this  work,  we  think  it  well  adapted  to 
accomplish  the  good  purposes  fbrwhichit  is  designed  It  exposes  and  relutes 
the  extravagant  assumptions  of  High-Churchmen,  who  claim  to  be  the  succes- 
sors of  the  apostles  in  the  ministry,  exclusive  of  all  those  who  reject  their  views 
of  Prelacy.  The  work  is  worthy  of  a  more  extended  notice,  winch  shall  be 
given  at  an  early  day.' 

From  the  Christian  Watchman.    (Boston  — a  Baptist  paper.) 

'  This  volume  has  lain  on  our  table  a  considerable  time,  to  enable  us  to  give  it 
such  an  examination  as  the  subject  and  the  merits  of  the  book  demand.  The 
discussion  throughout  is  conducted  with  candor,  impartiality,  and  kindness  ;  and 
displays  110  small  share  of  ability,  learning,  and  diligent  research.  It  i- 
dedly  the  most  able  and  thorough  vindication  iff  the  Presbyterian  view  of  the 
subject  which  we  have  ever  seen.  The  discussion,  loo,  is  timely,  when  Epis- 
copal popery  is  receiving  a  new  impulse  from  the  Oxford  writers,  whose  senti- 
ments find  so  much  sympathy  even  tu  our  own  land.  We  commend  the  book, 
therefore,  to  the  attention  of  our  brethren  in  the  ministry,  not  as  taking  in  every 
instance  that  ground  which  we,  as  Baptists  and  Independents  should  prefer  to 
.  11,  but  as  an  able  defence  of  the  truth,  and  an  extensive  collection  of 
authorities  and  facts.' 

From  the  Christian  Examiner  and  General  Review,  (Boston,)  Nov.  1841. 

'  We  by  no  means  intend  to  intimate  that  the  work  is  ill-timed  or  superfluous. 
Such  is  not  our  opinion.  We  believe  it  will  do  good.  It  will  meet  the  new 
phase  of  the  controversy,  and  supply  what  we  have  no  doubt  is,  in  some  parts  of 
our  country,  a  pressing  want.  Even  the  greatest  absurdities,  iterated  and  reit- 
erated ill  a  tone  of  uuiiltishing  confidence,  will  gain  some  adherents.  Besides, 
the  old  treatises  on  the  subject  are  in  a  manner  inaccessible  to  the  general  reader, 
and  will  produce  a  deeper  impression,  even  if  it  be  not  more  applicable,  which 
in  ordinary  cases  it  will  be,  to  the  slate  of  the  times.     The  present  volume  we 

regard  as  not  only  suited  to  the  times,  but  in  it-elf  a  production  ol  no  trifling 
merit.  It  indicates  great  industry,  und  no  little  research  on  the  part  ol  the 
writer,  and  its  statements  appear,  from  such  an  examination  as  we  have  been 
able  to  give  it,  entitled  to  confidence.  .  .  .  There  is  an  earnestness,  good 
temper  and  thoroughness  which  mark  the  work,  which  we  like,  and  we  can 
very  cordially  commend  it  to  the  attention  of  all  who  feel  an  interest  in  the 
subject.' 

From  the  Southern  Quarterly  Review. 

'  This  is  one  of  the  ablest  works  of  theological  controversy,  thai  has  appeared 
during  the  present  century,  and  we  are  happy  I  i  be  able  to  add  that  it  is  the  pro- 
duction of  a  Charleston  clergyman.  .  .  .  We  say  then,  in  the  outset,  that  the 
Presbyterian  church  has,  in  our  opinion,  in  the  authorofthe  work  before  us,  a 
powerful  champion,  who  wields  a  polished  pen,  and  one  who  seems  to  be  emi- 
nently fitted.  b\  his  learning,  his  talents,  and  his  industry,  to  maintain  manfully 
the  cause  he  has  espoused.  VV'e  have  read  his  book  wilh  deep  interest,  and  with 
great  respect  for  Ins  ability,  and  ihe  general  candor  and  fairness  of  his  argu- 
ments.'   [April,  1S43:  pp  531  —  537. 

From  the  Magnolia,  a  Literary  Magazine  and  Monthly  Review. 

'  The  Doctrine  of  Apostolical  Succession  is  here  examined  in  an  elabora'e 
course  of  Lectures,  twenty-one  in  number,  by  the  Rev.  Thos.  Smyth,  Pastoroi 
the  Second  l'resbvterian  Church  in  Charleston.  It  is  not  within  our  province  to 
examine  them.  We  can  say  nothing,  therefore,  of  the  question  which  .Mr. 
8inyth  discusses.     .\o  doubt  lie  discusses  it  ably.     He  certainly  discusses  it  ear- 


6  CRITICAL     NOTICES. 

nestly.  He  is  ingenious  and  forcible,  and  displays  a  wonderful  deal  of  industry 
and  research.  Here  now  is  an  octavo  of  near  six  hundred  pages,  brimful  of 
study,  and  crowded  with  authorities.  We  perceive  that  Mr.  Smyth  wins  the 
plaudit  '  well  done,'  from  numerous  high  sources,  advocating  the  same  doctrine 
with  himself.  They  seem  to  think  that  his  argument  has  done  ample  justice  to 
his  subject ;  and  we  may  add,  so  far  as  we  have  been  able  to  examine  it,  that  it 
has  been  urged  in  a  candid  and  Christian  temper.' 

From ,  Attorney  General  in  the  State  of  — — . 

'  Your  Lectures  I  read  with  the  highest  satisfaction,  and  take  great  pleasure  in 
acknowledging  the  obligations  which  I  think  the  friends  of  Christian  truth,  reli- 
gious liberty,  and  I  will  add,  of  the  pure  undefiled  gospel,  owe  to  you  for  them. 
Your  vindication  of  the  Church,  by  which  1  mean  the  humble  followers  of  our 
Lord,  by  whatever  name  called,  from  the  claims  of  usurped  ecclesiastical  domi- 
nation, seems  to  me  to  be  complete  ;  and  whilst  you  have,  in  succession, 
destroyed  and  dissipated  every  ground  of  doubt  on  the  subject,  in  the  minds  of 
the  unprejudiced,  your  extensive  and  enlightened  research  and  discrimination, 
have  enabled  you  to  furnish  an  armory,  where  every  one  may  supply  himself 
with  weapons  for  defence  against  individual  attack.  Nor  am  I  less  gratified  with 
the  candid  and  charitable  tone  and  temper  with  which  your  views  are  propounded, 
than  with  the  overwhelming  mass  of  argument  and  illustration  by  which  they 
are  demonstrated.  Your  lectures  seem  to  me  to  have  been  written  in  a  truly 
Christian  spirit;  and  if  they  have  been  cavilled  at  on  that  ground,  it  can  only  be 
because  men  always  feel  attacks  upon  their  prejudices  to  be  unkind.' 

From  the  New  England  Puritan. 

'  This  large  octavo,  of  five  hundred  and  sixty-eight  pages,  is  a  highly  seasona- 
ble offering  to  the  Protestant  Churches  of  our  country,  and  displays  an  amount 
of  learning,  of  research,  of  skill  and  power  in  argument,  of  fertility  in  illustration, 
of  combined  candor  and  earnestness  of  spirit,  rarely  to  be  met  with  in  any  volume 
either  of  home  or  foreign  origin.  We  have  not  had  it  in  hand  long  enough  to 
master  the  whole  of  its  contents  —  but  long  enough  to  be  satisfied  of  its  happy 
adaptation  to  the  sad  times  on  which  we  have  fallen,  and  of  the  richness  of  the 
treasures  it  offers  to  the  acceptance  of  the  true  friends  of  Christ.  The  volume 
before  us,  though  perfectly  calm  and  candid  in  its  discussions,  leaves  this  matter 
plain  as  sunlight.  More  formidable  foes  to  Christ  and  his  apostles  are  not  to  be 
found  amid  all  the  tribes  of  religious  errorists,  than  those  arrayed  beneath  the 
banners  of  Popery  and  High  Churehism.  It  is  to  be  hoped  that  our  brethren  in 
the  ministry  will  avail  themselves  of  the  labors  of  Mr.  Smyth,  to  become 
thoroughly  acquainted  with  this  imposing  form  of  error,  and  arm  themselves 
with  '  panoply  divine  '  to  meet  it  and  confound  it.  ere  it  attains  the  preeminence 
to  which  it  aspires,  and  which,  unresisted,  it  will  inevitably  attain.' 

From  the  Boston  Recorder. 

'  This  is  truly  an  elaborate  work.  Our  attention  has  been  but  recently  called, 
in  a  special  manner,  to  its  contents,  but  our  highest  expectations  of  the  candor 
and  ability  of  the  discussion  have  been  more  than  satisfied.  The  object  of  the 
author's  animadversion  is  not  episcopacy,  as  such  ;  but  the  arrogant  and  exclu- 
sive claim  of  High  Churchmen  and  Romanists  to  be  the  only  true  Church  of 
Christ;  his  only  real  ministers,  an  I  the  '  only  sources  of  efficacious  ordinances 
and  covenanted  salvation.'  The  volume  is  eminently  appropriate  to  the  times, 
and,  if  read  with  a  sincere  desire  for  the  truth,  must,  we  think,  prove  an  imme- 
diate corrective  of  any  tendencies  towards  the  Church  of  England  or  of  Rome.' 

From  the  Christian  World,  bv  the  Rev.  Mr.  Stockton,  of  the  Protestant 

Methodist  Church. 

1  The  Lectures  which  have  led  us  to  these  remarks,  are  a  valuable  addition  to 

religious  literature,  and  more  particularly,  the  polemical  department  of  it.     They 

number  twenty-one,  and  fill  a  handsome  volume  of  five  hundred  and  fifty  pages. 

The  chief  aim  oC  the  author  has  been  to  test  the  prelatical  doctrine  by  Scripture, 


CRITICAL     NOTICES.  ' 

history  and  facts  — to  exhibit  its  popish,  intolerant,  unreasonable,  and  suicidal 
character,  and  to  show  that  it  has  been  condemned  by  the  best  authorities,  I  lie 
latter  n:irt  of  the  work  is  devoted  to  a  consideration  of  Schism,  and  to  a  discus- 
sion of  the  true  doctrine  of  Apostolical  Succession  The  plan  covers  the  whole 
subject-  the  execution  is  well  managed.  It  is  bold,  but  temperate  -  tearless, 
but  not  reckless  — a  fine  specimen  of  good  tactics  in  a  delensive  war.  As  a  text- 
book it  is  worthy  of  high  commendation,  abounding  as  it  does  m  copious  extracts, 
and  presenting  the  views  of  all  our  standard  authors.  It  is  a  local  point  w  .ere 
many  rays  have  been  gathered  — we  had  almost  said  at  the  risk  ot  good  taste  — 
a  hive,  where  many  bees  had  deposited  honey.  If  it  be  not  as  elofluen  as 
Mason's  Essay  on  this  subject,  or  as  cogent  and  imaginative  as  Milton  a  lracl» 
on  it,  we  have  no  hesitation  in  preferring  it  to  either,  for  compass,  variety,  and 
clear  demonstration. ' 

From  the  American  Biblical  Repository. 
'  This  well  filled  octavo  volume  has  come  into  our  hands.  Its  leading  subjects, 
as  indicated  in  the  title-page,  are  of  sufficient  importance  to  demand  a  thorough 
discussion ;  and  we  agree  with  our  author  in  the  belief  that  the  lime  has  come 
when  such  a  discussion  is  necessary  for  the  proper  vindication  ol  the  rights  ana 
duties  of  the  great  body  of  the  Protestant  ministry  and  churches,  against  me 
assumptions  of  a  portion  of  their  own  number,  who  take  common  ground  wilh 
Romanists  in  excluding  from  the  pale  of  communion  in  the  '  holy,  catholic,  ana 
apostolic  church,'  all  who  dissent  from  their  doctrine  of  '  exclusive  apostolic  suc- 
cession.' These  assumptions  are  not  only  found  in  many  of  the  old  and  standard 
divines  of  the  Church  of  England,  but  have  been  of  late  zealously  put  lorlh  in 
the  Oxford  '  Tracts  for  the  Tunes,'  have  been  avowed  by  English  and  American 
bishops,  and  by  a  great  number  of  the  Episcopal  clergy  of  bpih.  countries ;  and 
the  assurance  with  which  they  are  urged  m  many  recent  publications,  calls  lor  a 
mtienl  and  thorough  examination  of  the  arguments  advanced  in  their  support. 
Such  is  the  work  undertaken  by  our  author.  The  topics  of  the  twenty-one  Lec- 
tures comprised  in  this  volume,  are  as  follows,  etc.  These  subjects  are  discussed 
with  great  earnestness  and  strength  ;  and  the  ample  and  numerous  authorities  by 
which  his  statements  and  reasonings  are  confirmed,  show  that  the  author  lias 
spared  no  labor,  and  dispensed  wilh  no  availal  le  aid,  in  his  investigations.  As 
far  as  we  have  examined  them,  they  appear  to  us  thorough  and  satistuclor) ,  ana 
we  cordially  commend  the  work  to  the  diligent  study  of  our  readers. 

From  the  Rev.  Samuel  H.  Cox,  D.  D.    Extract  from  a  Letter. 

•  Rev  and  Dear  Sir:  — Though  personally  unknown  to  you,  yet  haye  I  been 
so  pleased  wilh  your  Lectures  on  the  Aposlolical  Succession,  that  I  thought  it 
but  fair  to  tell  you  of  it.  ...  I  believe  you  are  doing  a  protectant  and  a  christian 
work  and  while  I  regret  some  incidental  differences  ot  another  kind  between 
us,  I  am  happy  to  assure  you  of  my  God-speed,  and  of  my  prayers  for  a  blessing 
on  your  labors.' 

From  the  Rev.  Dr.  Lamson. 

Dr  Lamson  in  his  Lecture  on  the  Uses  of  Ecclesiastical  History,  (Christian 
Examiner,  Sept.  1842,  p.  12,1  in  alluding  to  the  claims  of  prelacy,  and  the  doc- 
trine of  Apostolical  Succession,  says:  '  It  has  been  found  necessary  to  take  the 
field,  and  already  a  goodly  sized  octavo,  manifesting  no  little  industry  and 
research,  has  appeared,  printed  in  this  city,  though  written  by  a  Presbyterian  of 
the  South,  in  refutation  of  these,  as  we  are  accustomed  to  consider,  perfecUy 
absurd  and  obsolete  claims.' 

From  the  Protestant  and  Herald. 

After  speaking  of  the  author's  Ecclesiastical  Catechism,  a  writer  in  this  paper 
■ays  •  '  He  had  before  prepared  us  for  such  a  treat,  by  favoring  the  Protestant 
Church  with  a  profound,  learned,  and  eloquent  argument  on  the  Apostolic  buc- 
cession  '  utterly  refuting  the  exclusive  and  inflated  claims  of  all  High  Churchmen, 
or  '  china  men,'  as  they  have  been  appropriately  styled  m  the  Biblical  Repertory. 


S  CRITICAL     NOTICES. 

Of  this  production  of  his,  I  have  the  means  of  knowing,  that  the  venerable  cham- 
pion in  the  cause,  has  privately  declared  '  that  Mr.  Smyth  has  quoted  books  in  the 
controversy,  which  he  had  never  had  the  privilege  of  seeing,  and  which  were 
even  rare  in  Europe.' ' 

From  the  Honorable  Mitchell  King,  of  Charleston,  S.  C. 

'  Rev.  and  Dear  Sir  :  —  You  have  done  a  lasting  service  to  the  Presbyterian 
Church,  by  the  publication  of  your  work  on  the  Preiatical  Doctrine  of  the  Apos- 
tolical Succession.  The  question  which  you  there  discuss  has  assumed  in  our 
times  a  renewed  importance,  from  the  efforts  recently  made  to  claim  for  particu- 
lar bodies  of  Christians  an  exclusive  right  to  the  benefits  of  that  covenant  of 
grace,  which  Christ  came  to  make  with  all  true  believers.  This  question  was, 
as  you  and  I  believe,  long  ago  settled  by  the  thorough  investigations  and  conclu- 
sive arguments  of  men  worthy,  if  mortal  men  can  be  worthy,  of  the  great  cause 
in  which  they  were  engaged;  who  were  influenced  solely  by  the  love  of  truth, 
and  followed  that,  wherever  it  might  lead  them,  without  regard  to  merely  human 
authority  ;  and  many  of  whom  sealed  their  testimony  with  their  blood.  These 
times  have  passed  away.  But  earnest  endeavors  have  been  lately  made,  to 
shake  the  confidence  of  many  Christians  in  the  principles  of  their  fathers,  and  to 
overthrow  their  faith  in  that  Church  which  we  believe  to  be  founded  on  the 
words  of  everlasting  life.  Your  work,  therefore,  I  consider  as  most  seasonable 
and  valuable,  as  reviving  and  spreading  the  knowledge  of  the  fundamental  truths 
on  which  our  Church  rests.  It  contains  a  fuller  review  of  the  reasonings  and 
authorities  on  this  subject,  than  any  other  work  with  which  I  am  acquainted,  and 
will,  I  am  persuaded,  henceforth  be  an  armory  in  which  the  defenders  of  Presby- 
terianism  can  find  weapons  of  proof  ready  prepared  for  them.  That  you  may  go 
forward  in  the  course  which  you  have  so  honorably  begun,  and  that  the  Great 
Head  of  the  Church  may  follow  your  labors  with  his  rich  blessing,  is  the  earnest 
prayer  of,  Rev'd  and  Dear  Sir,  yours  very  truly,  M.  KING. 

From  the  Rev.  John  Bachman,  D.  D.,  of  the  German  Lutheran  Church, 
Charleston,  S.  C. 

'  My  Dear  Sir:  —  To  my  mind  your  Lectures  on  the  Apostolical  Succession 
covers  the  whole  ground,  and  is,  without  exception,  the  most  triumphant  vindica- 
tion of  our  views  on  this  subject,  that  I  have  ever  read.  I  regard  the  work  as 
the  most  valuable  contribution  that  has  ever  been  made  to  the  Southern  Church.' 


AN 

ECCLESIASTICAL  CATECHISM 

OF    THE 

PRESBYTERIAN   CHURCH, 

For  the  use  of  Bible  Classes,  Families,  and  Private  Members. 

THIED  EDITION,  MUCH  IMPROVED. 

37(i<  work  has  been  submitted  to  the  revision  of  the  Rev.  Samuel  Miller,  d.  D. 
and  many  others,  and  is  now  published,  as  approved  by  them,  and  with  their 
emendations. 


CRITICAL    NOTICES. 

Overture  adopted  by  the  Synod  of  S.  Carolina  and  Geo.  at  its  session  in  1841. 
That  the  publication  of  works  intended  to  advocate  the  distinctive  order  and 
polity  of  our  Church  should  be  encouraged,  and  their  circulation  among  our 
people  rendered  as  general  as  possible  ;  and  it  having  come  to  the  knowledge  of 
this Synod,  that  one  of  their  number,  the  Rev.  Thomas  Smyth,  of  Charleston,  has 
recently  given  to  the  Church,  among  other  valuable  publications  An  Ecclesias- 
tical Catechism  of  the  Presbyterian  Church,  tor  the  use  of  Families  B  We 
Classes,  and  Private  Members,'- and  a  series  of  Lectures  on  '  The  I  relaucal 
Doctrine  of  Apostolical  Succession  Examined,  and  the  Protestant  Ministry 
Defended  against  the  Asumptions  of  Popery  and  High  Churchis.n.'  Theretore, 
Resolved,  Tliat  the  Synod  of  South  Carolina  and  Georgia  regard  with  pleasure 
and  approbation  these  publications,  as  containing  an  able  defence  of  UlO  divine 
authority  of  the  Protestant  Ministry,  and  a  full  and  satislactory  exposition  o  the 
order  and  government  of  our  Church;  and  as  demanded  by  the  present  state  o 
the  controversy  on  these  subjects.  And  the  Synod  does,  therefore,  cordially 
recommend  the  said  publications  to  all  our  Ministers,  Elders,  and  private  mem- 
bers, as  works  of  high  value,  and  calculated  to  advance  the  intelligence  ot  our 
Church,  on  our  distinctive  peculiarities  and  doctrines. 

From  the  Biblical  Repertory,  for  January,  1841. 
'  Mr  Smyth  must  be  regarded  as  among  the  most  efficient  and  active  authors 
in  the  Presbyterian  Church.  His  valuable  work  on  the  'Apostolical  Succession,' 
reviewed  in  a  preceding  part  of  this  number,  is  a  monument  of  Ins  readme  antl 
industry,  which  has  been  extensively  acknowledged.  The  Ecclesiastical  Cat- 
echism '  before  us,  is  another  present  to  the  Church  with  which  Mr.  Smyth  is 
connected,  which  we  think  adapted  to  be  universally  esteemed,  and  highly  useful. 
It  is  as  all  such  manuals  ought  to  be,  brief,  comprehensive,  simple,  adapted  to 
weak  capacities,  and  yet  sufficiently  instructive  to  gratify  the  most  intelligent 
minds.  The  Scriptural  quotations  to  illustrate  and  establish  the  principles  lie 
lays  down,  are  perhaps,  in  some  cases,  unnecessarily  numerous,  and  in  a  tew 
instances,  of  questionable  application.  But  it  is  on  the  whole  so  well  executed, 
and  possesses  so  much  solid  merit,  that  we  hope  it  may  be  extensively  circulated 
and  used.' 


S  CRITICAL     NOTICES. 

From  the  Bev.  G  eo.  Howe,  D.  D. ,  Professor  in  the  Theological  Seminary  of  the 
Synod  of  South  Carolina  and  Georgia. 

'  The  design  and  ihe  execution  are  excellent.  It  contains  a  more  complete 
explanation  ot'  the  order  and  government  of  our  Church,  than  I  have  ever  beibre 
seen  in  so  small  a  compass.  I  think  it  admirably  adapted  to  the  purposes  for 
which  it  was  designed,  and  could  wish  to  see  it  in  every  Presbyterian  family, 
and  studied  by  all  our  young  people,  as  an  appendix  to  the  doctrinal  catechisms.' 

From  The  Presbyterian. 

'  We  have  received  a  neat  and  well-printed  little  volume  of  one  hundred  and 
twenty-four  pages,  entitled  'All  Ecclesiastical  Catechism  of  the  Presbyterian 
Church,  for  the  use  of  Families,  Bible  Classes,  and  Private  Members:'  by  Rev. 
Thomas  Smyth,  Pastor  of  the  Second  Presbyterian  Church,  Charleston,  S.  C, 
into  which  the  author  has  compressed  a  large  amount  of  very  valuable  matter, 
explanatory  ami  illustrative  of  Church  order,  and  which  we  regard  as  particularly 
serviceable  at  the  present  time,  as  supplying  a  desideratum  in  the  education  of 
Presbyterian  youth.  Although  the  author  modestly  remarks,  that  his  Catechism 
is  an  attempt  rather  than  an  actual  accomplishment  of  all  that  he  believes  to  be 
demanded  by  the  necessities  of  the  Church,  yet  from  the  attention  we  have  been 
able  to  bestow  on  it,  we  should  regard  the  execution  of  the  attempt  as  highly 
creditable,  and  we  believe  the  book  to  he  deserving  of  an  immediate  adoption  in 
the  instruction  of  the  youth  of  our  Church.' 

From  the  Christian  Intelligencer,  of  the  Reformed  Dutch  Church,  N.  Y. 

'  The  members  of  the  Presbyterian  Church  should  possess  a  full  and  satisfactory 
acquaintance  with  the  principles  of  Presbyterian  government,  polity,  and  worship. 
This  little  volume  is  exceedingly  well  adapted  to  aid  in  gaining  this  acquaint- 
ance, and  is  suited  for  general  and  popular  use.  While  industrious  efforts  are 
employed  by  other  denominations  in  opposition  to  these  principle*,  it  is  highly 
important  and  desirable  that  a  popular  manual,  in  elucidation  and  vindication  of 
their  creeds,  as  is  provided  in  this  volume,  should  be  circulated.  The  following 
are  the  subjects  of  the  chapters,  each  of  which  contains  several  sections,  or  sub- 
divisions •  —  I.  The  Church.  II.  Governments  of  the  Church.  III.  Officers  of 
the  Church.  IV.  Courts  of  the  Church.  V.  Power  of  the  Church.  VI.  Fellow- 
ship of  the  Church.  VII.  Relation  of  the  Presbyterian  Church  to  other  denomi- 
nations. The  catechetical  form  of  the  work,  and  the  copious  scripture-references 
and  authorities,  adapt  it  to  the  use  of  instruction.  Such  a  volume  as  this  was 
needed  ;  and  we  feel  indebted  to  Mr.  Smyth  for  the  preparation  of  it,  as  we  deem 
it,  in  matter  and  manner,  meeting  the  desideratum  required.' 

From  the  Charleston  Observer. 

'Of  the  first  edition  of  this  work  we  spoke  in  terms  of  commendation.  But 
this  is  a  very  considerable  improvement,  not  only  in  the  style  in  which  it  is  gotten 
up  —  for  it  is  very  neatly  printed  and  bound  —  but  in  the  arrangement  and  matter. 
It  supplies  a  place  that  is  needed,  anil  yet  it  is  issued  merely  as  an  attempt  to 
furnish  the  Church  with  a  brief  compend  of  her  worship  and  polity.  As  a 
denomination,  we  have  been  remiss  in  the  duty  of  letting  the  principles  and  polity 
of  our  Church  be  generally  known.  Many  of  our  own  members  need  informa- 
tion on  this  subject,  that  they  may  be  established  in  the  truth  and  order  of  the 
house  of  God.  And  information  is  needed  also  by  others,  to  correct  the  erroneous 
impressions  respecting  it.  which  have  been  designedly  or  undesignedly  made  upon 
their  minds.     The  work  deserves  general  circulation.' 

From  the  New  York  Observer. 

'  The  preparation  of  this  little  work  was  the  result  of  a  suggestion  by  Rev.  Dr. 
Miller,  of  Princeton  ;  and  in  it  the  author  lias  presented  the  peculiar  features  of 
the  form  of  Government  in  the  Presbyterian  Church,  in  questions  and  answers, 
and  in  simple  language,  that  the  sentiments  inculcated  may  be  readily  learned 
and  remembered  by  the  young.' 


CRITICAL     NOTICES  3 

From  the  Protestant  and  Herald. 

•Mr.  Editor:  — During  the  past  winter,  the  Female  Bible  Class  of  my  pas- 
toral charge,  have  memorized  '  The.  Ecclesiastical  Qittchism,'  prepared  by  the  Rev. 
Thomas  Smyth,  of  Charleston,  South  Carolina.  I  make  this  statement  in  your 
columns,  in  order  to  excite  and  secure  the  attention  of  your  readers  to  the  utility 
and  value  of  that  little  volume.  The  ladies  have  manifested  an  unusual  degree 
of  delight  and  enthusiasm  in  their  recitations.  The  result  has  been,  if  I  mistake 
not,  '  a  full  and  comprehensive  acquaintance  with  the  principles  of  the  worship 
and  polity  of  our  Church.'  Such  was  the  hope  of  its  worthy  and  able  author  in 
the  preparation  of  his  book.  The  proof-texts  are  generally  printed  at  length  m 
the  Catechism.  Without  attempting  an  analysis  of  this  book,  allow  me  to  urge 
Pastors,  and  Ruling  Elders,  and  Deacons,  and  Sunday  School  Teachers  in  our 
Churches,  to  procure  this  interesting  and  attractive  and  cheap  compend  ot  Church 
order,  and  indoctrinate  their  families  and  pupils  into  these  cherished  principles  of 
our  denomination.  Are  we  not,  as  a  body  of  people,  quite  remiss  in  this  high 
duty?  Let  the  standard-bearers  in  our  host,  bestir  themselves  as  they  ought,  to 
circulate  this  work,  as  a  Presbyterian  Sabbath  School  book,  and  make  it,  it  you 
please,  what  it  deserves  to  be,  next  to  our  Larger  and  Shorter  Catechism  — 
a  Presbyterian  classic  in  all  our  family  instructions.' 

From  the  Magnolia,  a  Literary  Magazine  and  Monthly  Review. 

'  This  little  volume  was  meant  for,  and  is  acknowledged  to  have  supplied  a 
want,  among  the  members  of  the  Presbyterian  Church.  It  is  a  copious  compila- 
tion, containing  a  large  amount  of  religious  information,  and  we  take  for  granted, 
that,  among  the  class  of  Christians  for  whose  use  it  was  prepared,  it  is  far 
superior  to  any  thing  of  the  sort  which  had  ever  been  offered  them  before.  It 
shows  industry,  reading,  and  analysis.' 

From  the  American  Biblical  Repository. 

'  This  little  volume  is  issued  by  the  same  publishers  as  the  preceding  work,  by 
the  same  author.  It  is  a  well-digested  system  of  questions  and  answers  on  the 
Church,  its  government,  — its  officers.  — its  courts,  — its  powers,  —  its  tellowship, 
and  the  relation  of  the  Presbyterian  Church  to  other  denominations.  It  is  a  use- 
ful manual  for  Presbyterians,  and  may  be  instructive  to  others.' 


ALSO,  BY  THE   SAME   AUTHOR, 

SOLACE  FOR  BEREAVED  PARENTS; 

OR,  INFANTS  DIE  TO  LIVE. 
With  a  Historical  Account  of  the  Doctrine  of  Infant  Salvation. 
'  The  doctrine  of  the  Salvation  of  Infants  is  ably  defended  in  this  little  volume, 
and  the  sweet  consolation  of  this  belief  is  tendered  to  parents  whom  God  has 
bereaved.  Enemies  of  Calvinism  have  delighted  to  misrepresent  iis  friends  on 
this  point,  and  to  them  we  commend  the  book  ;  as  well  as  to  those  who  love,  with 
Jesus,  to  say  of  little  children, '  of  such  is  the  Kingdom.' '— New  York  Observer. 


A  FORM    FOR    THE 

SOLEMNIZATION  OF  MARRIAGE 

ACCORDING  TO  THE  ORDER  OF  THE  PRESBYTERIAN   CHURCH. 


TRACTS    ON    PRESBYTERIANISM.     1  Vol.  12mo. 


ALSO,    BY    THE    SAME    AUTHOR, 
JUST    PUBLISHED, 

PRESBYTERY   AND    NOT    PRELACY 

THE    SCRIPTURAL   AND    PRIMITIVE   POLITY, 

PROVED  FROM  THE  TESTIMONIES  OF  SCRIPTURE  ;   THE   FATHERS  ;   THE    SCHOOL- 
MEN J   THE    REFORMERS  j    AND   THE    ENGLISH   AND    ORIENTAL   CHURCHES. 

ALSO,  THE  ANTIQUITY   OF  PRESBYTERY; 

INCLUDING  AN  ACCOUNT  OF  THE  ANCIENT  CULDEES,  AND  OF  ST.  PATRICK. 


ECCLESIASTICAL  REPUBLICANISM; 

OR  THE    REPUBLICANISM,   L1BERALITT,   AND    OATHOLICITI   0» 

PRESBYTERY, 
IN  CONTRAST  WITH  PRELACY  AND  POPERY. 


PREPARING   FOR   PUBLICATION, 
AN  ABRIDGED   EDITION  OF  THE  AUTHORS  WORK  ON 

THE    PRELATICAL    DOCTRINE 

OF   THE 

APOSTOLICAL    SUCCESSION, 

PREPARED,  AT  HIS  REQUEST,  BY  THE 

REV.    JOSEPH   TRACT, 

AUTHOR    OF    THE    GREAT    AWAKENING,    HISTORY    OF    THE    A.    B.    O. 
FOR   FOREIGN    MISSIONS,    &C. 


ALSO,    BY    THE    SAME    AUTHOR, 
JUST    PUBLISHED, 

PRESBYTERY   AND    NOT    PRELACY 

THE    SCRIPTURAL   AND    PRIMITIVE   POLITY, 

PROVED  FROM  THE  TESTIMONIES  OF  SCRIPTURE  ;   THE   FATHERS  ;    TnE    SCHOOL- 
MEN J   THE    REFORMERS  j    AND   THE   ENGLISH   AND    ORIENTAL   CHURCHES. 

ALSO,  THE  ANTIQUITY   OF  PRESBYTERY; 

INCLUDING  AN  ACCOUNT  OF  THE  ANCIENT  CULDEES,  AND  OF  ST.  PATRICK. 


ECCLESIASTICAL  REPUBLICANISM ; 

OR  TSB    REPUBLICANISM,   LIBERALITY,   AND    CATHOLICITY.    0» 

PRESBYTERY, 
IN  CONTRAST  WITH  PRELACY  AND  POPERY. 


PREPARING   FOR   PUBLICATION, 
AN  ABRIDGED   EDITION  OF  THE  AUTHOR'S  WORK  ON 

THE    PRELATICAL    DOCTRINE 

OF   THE 

APOSTOLICAL    SUCCESSION, 

PREPARED,  AT  HIS  REQUEST,  BY  THE 

REV.    JOSEPH   TRACY, 

AUTHOR    OF    THE    GREAT    AWAXENING,    HISTORY    OF    THE    A.    B.    O. 
FOR   FOREIGN    MISSIONS,    &C. 


Princeton    i  neuiuy '«',•£,?, ii ■ , 


1    1012  01254  3684 


